NY Times At It Again: Has To Run Massive Correction For All The Errors In Aaron Sorkin's Facts Optional Rant About Why Facebook Should Fact Check

from the wanna-try-that-again dept

The NY Times' Opinion Section continues its run of truly awful decisions lately. As we learned during the Bret Stephens "bedbug" fiasco, the NY Times deliberately chooses not to fact check its opinion and op-ed writers, allegedly based on some weird belief that since these are opinions, they don't need any fact checking (or, alternatively, that some sort of fact checking might stifle the creative voices the NYT Opinion pages thinks are worth publishing).

Given that, it takes a certain amount of failed irony detection to then run an angry rant of an "open letter to Mark Zuckerberg" from screenwriter Aaron Sorkin complaining about Facebook's recent decision not to fact check political ads. Sorkin is an amazing writer, but it seems particularly odd to have him write such a piece, since he has a history of writing movies about real life people in which he completely misrepresents reality. Indeed, he did exactly that about Mark Zuckerberg. So it seems a bit rich to have him be the delivery person for a message about truth in media. And that's doubly so because many, many people believe that Sorkin's portrayal of Zuckerberg in The Social Network is accurate, when it is very, very much not.

But an even larger point: when you're writing an open letter to demand more fact checking, wouldn't you make sure to carefully fact check your own piece first? Apparently neither Sorkin, nor the NY Times Opinion pages thought that was worthwhile. And, as more and more people called out blatant factual errors in the piece, the NY Times had to gradually rewrite and issue a longer and longer correction on their piece.

Correction: Oct 31, 2019
An earlier version of this article misstated the year in which "The Social Network was released. It was 2010, not 2011. The nature of the major lawsuit that bankrupted Gawker was misstated. It was an invasion of privacy lawsuit, not a defamation suit. In addition, information about Americans' use of Facebook as a new source was misstated. In 2018, over 40 percent of Americans said they got news from Facebook; it is not the case that half of all Americans say that Facebook is their main source of news.

I'll note that the significance and importance of each of these corrections is in inverse order of how they are presented (and, indeed, the larger, more important corrections came later as well). It's not that big a deal that Sorkin forgot the year of his own damn movie, but it does seem at least a bit ironic in a piece advocating for the need for more fact checking that such an easily confirmed fact is misstated. The nature of Hogan's suit against Gawker might not matter that much to Sorkin, but it's actually a pretty big deal in terms of what happened and why it happened.

But the last one is a real doozy. A huge part of Sorkin's argument was that Facebook has to be held to a different standard because so many people use it as their "primary" source of news. Except that's not what the data shows at all. It shows a smaller percentage said they had found some news on Facebook. Not that it was a primary source. Separately, finding news on Facebook is completely meaningless regarding the question of fact checking political ads. Most of the news that people find via Facebook is legit. Some of it is not. But how much is that bit that is not accurate actually influencing people? That's an important question -- and one that isn't clearly answered yet. It would be interesting to find out, but Sorkin just seems to leap beyond all of that, misstate how many people get how much of their news from Facebook and assume the worst.

In some ways, that's just Sorkin being Sorkin. But it boggles the mind that anyone -- either Sorkin himself or the NY Times -- would think that they should rush forward with a snappily written attack on Facebook's failure to fact check... and not do even the most basic fact checking on the story itself. Even if Sorkin had a point in the "open letter," it is completely drowned by the irony of the errors.

But there is a larger point here: there are reasons why the NY Times chooses not to fact check its opinion pieces. You or I may disagree with them -- and we can speak out about why we think it makes the paper of record look like a cheap nonsense tabloid. But it has that choice. Facebook also has that choice -- and we can criticize them too. But the idea that fact checking magically fixes all things is completely overblown. And the idea that politicians will suddenly stop lying in ads, or that this will magically make voters smarter is all completely unsupported.

Sorkin's piece insists that "tens of millions of kids" are being misled by fake ads on Facebook -- but there's no evidence to support that. Indeed, most evidence regarding those susceptible to scam info on Facebook are the boomer generation. You know, like Aaron Sorkin. And, for what it's worth, actual data suggests that misleading stories didn't really take off from Facebook, but rather from television, which just happens to be the medium in which Aaron Sorkin is most famous. Funny that Sorkin doesn't mention any of that, isn't it?

Filed Under: aaron sorkin, content moderation, fact checking, mark zuckerberg, ny times opinion, political ads, social media
Companies: facebook, ny times

Scott Rudin Tries To Turn Mess Of Shutting Down Community Theater Shows... Into Publicity Stunt For His Own Show

from the just-let-them-do-their-show,-scott dept

On Friday, we wrote about the cartoonishly evil decision by producer Scott Rudin, who is producing a big Broadway reboot of To Kill A Mockingbird, written by Aaron Sorkin, to shut down local community theater versions of the earlier play version of the story, written by Christopher Sergel. Apparently, the contract with the Harper Lee estate for a stage adaptation of her book involved some odd clause that said if there was a showing on Broadway of Mockingbird, there couldn't be any stagings near a city. And Rudin then had his lawyers threaten a whole bunch of small community theaters with cease-and-desist notices, claiming they may be on the hook for $150,000 in damages. All for small community theater operations which had paid their $100 license for the rights to perform the old Sergel version of the play.

As we noted in that post, rather than say this was about lawyers getting out of hand, Rudin doubled down on the idea, bizarrely making it sound like he had to block the productions:

"We hate to ask anybody to cancel any production of a play anywhere, but the productions in question as licensed by DPC infringe on rights licensed to us by Harper Lee directly," Rudin said in a statement.

Just because something might infringe doesn't mean you need to shut it down.

As that story got more and more attention, making Rudin look worse and worse, on Friday evening he announced a "solution" as told to the Hollywood Reporter: any theater that his lawyers had already threatened... would now be able to present the Rudin/Sorkin version of the play:

"As stewards of the performance rights of Aaron Sorkin's play, it is our responsibility to enforce the agreement we made with the Harper Lee estate and to make sure that we protect the extraordinary collaborators who made this production," said Rudin in a statement released exclusively to The Hollywood Reporter. "We have been hard at work creating what I hope might be a solution for those theater companies that have been affected by this unfortunate set of circumstances, in which rights that were not available to them were licensed to them by a third party who did not have the right to do so."

"In an effort to ameliorate the hurt caused here, we are offering each of these companies the right to perform our version of To Kill a Mockingbird, Aaron Sorkin's play, currently running on Broadway," continued Rudin's statement. "For these theaters, this is the version that can be offered to them, in concert with our agreement with Harper Lee. We hope they will choose to avail themselves of this opportunity."

On the one hand, you could say (as Rudin seems to suggest in patting himself on the back in putting forth this "opportunity") that letting small community theaters put on a big Broadway show while it's still on Broadway is quite a rare opportunity. It is. But... still, the whole situation stinks. If he's letting them put on that version, why did he threaten all of those community theaters with the potential of a lawsuit that would shut down most such theaters permanently first? And why not just let them perform the version they wanted to perform in the first place? Many of the theaters had already been rehearsing and preparing sets for the original version. And while it may feel like a nice offer to put on the newer version of the play, this whole thing feels like a cheap publicity stunt by Rudin after his cartoonishly evil moves earlier.

Just let them put on the play they wanted, rather than acting like you're making a giant concession after you made yourself look like an asshole with stupid threats to bankrupt community theaters.

"I think it's a good save from something that was, honestly, not the fault of the people who licensed it and not the fault of the people who owned the rights — which people are us — but I think ultimately for those who still can do it it's a good solution," said Rudin. "Everything that they licensed, we'll stand behind with ours."

A "good save"? Maybe stop patting yourself on the back and admit that you fucked up in the first place by unleashing lawyers with bogus threat letters to small community theaters? It's a "save" in that you're trying to save your reputation, but part of that is admitting that you made a mistake in the first place, rather than trying to turn this bad situation into free marketing for your own staging.

"Letting these theaters do it now is a substantial give for us, obviously, because it's really not in our interest to have the play out anywhere but on Broadway right now," he added.

"Substantial give." Oh come on. All you had to do was not threaten community theaters and let them put on their own version. This whole thing stinks of a Hollywood producer thinking that his own play must be what's really in demand and therefore he's being oh-so-generous in letting people present it after he basically threatened to bankrupt a ton of community theaters. Those community theaters should tell him to take his offer and stuff it.

Filed Under: aaron sorkin, community theater, copyright, infringement, scott rudin, threats, to kill a mockingbird

Producer Scott Rudin Going Around Killing Off Licensed Community Theater Shows Of To Kill A Mockingbird

from the promoting-the-progress dept

If you wanted to think of a children's story style "evil" character who must be stopped, you can't get much better than the evil rich out of towner going around the country trying to kill off local community theater productions of a beloved play, so that he can stage a massive Broadway reboot. So, step on up, Hollywood producer Scott Rudin, to the role of evil villain. Rudin is producing a new Broadway adaptation of Harper Lee's classic To Kill A Mockingbird. Of course, there already is a play based on the book, written by Christopher Sergel, that is widely performed around the country. Rudin, however, is producing a totally new version, written by famed Hollywood writer Aaron Sorkin.

Now, a normal, thinking, kind person would immediately recognize that local community theater productions can easily co-exist with this giant Broadway production with all the big Hollywood names behind it. But, that's apparently not Scott Rudin. Rudin's lawyers claim that part of the contract between the company that holds the rights to the earlier play -- a company called Dramatic Publishing Company -- if there is any version of Mockingbird on Broadway, there cannot be any other Mockingbird performances within 25 miles of any city that had a population of 150,000 or more in 1960. First off: what a weird contract. Second: this still seems like something any person with the slightest bit of emotional empathy would ignore in putting on the new Broadway show. But not Scott Rudin:

From Massachusetts to Utah, small community theater productions of "To Kill a Mockingbird" are being shut down under threat of a lawsuit by the producer of the new Broadway production.

It doesn't matter that the new version, penned by Aaron Sorkin, is completely different from the Christopher Sergel play that's been performed by high school students and community theater actors for decades. Nor does it matter that the community theaters paid a licensing fee of at least $100 dollars per performance to the Dramatic Publishing Company, which owns the rights to the earlier version of the play.

What matters, lawyers for Broadway producer Scott Rudin say, is that according to the contract between Dramatic and the Harper Lee estate, most amateur performances can't proceed now that a new version of the story is on Broadway.

Now, you might imagine that this was the kind of thing where the lawyers got ahead of themselves and were more aggressive than they needed to be, and once this started getting attention, Rudin would apologize and say it was all a mistake. But, nope. Not Scott Rudin:

"We hate to ask anybody to cancel any production of a play anywhere, but the productions in question as licensed by DPC infringe on rights licensed to us by Harper Lee directly," Rudin said in a statement.

That makes no sense. If you hate to ask anybody to cancel a production, then you don't have to demand that anyone cancels a production. The fact that it may "infringe on the rights" in the contract does not necessitate action. Rudin still had a choice. And he made a really awful one.

Even Rudin's statement is bullshit. His lawyers are not just "asking" small community theaters who have paid money to license the play to cancel their production, he's threatening them with massive court costs and penalties:

With the dispute unsettled, Rudin's lawyers in late February started sending letters directly to the theaters. The theaters are being threatened with damages of up to $150,000, the Associated Press reports. And so in towns across the country, performers are getting the bad news.

$150,000, of course, is the top statutory damages allowed for willful infringement of copyright. But, it takes a special kind of awfulness to argue that small community theaters who paid for and properly licensed a play are guilty of willful infringement.

And, of course, this kind of evil bullying is working:

Dozens of community and nonprofit theaters have canceled their productions, the AP says. More than 25 are scheduled to perform the original version this year, the New York Times reports. It's unclear whether those productions will proceed.

The Kavinoky Theatre in Buffalo, N.Y., which had sold around 3,000 advance tickets, will replace Mockingbird with an adaptation of George Orwell's "1984." "Thank you for supporting us during this difficult time," the theater posted on Facebook. "As we say in the theatre....THE SHOW MUST GO ON!!!!!!!!"

And at least one local theater has decided not to abandon its production, but rather to move it. The Mugford Street Players, based in the Marblehead suburb of Boston, is moving its performances to Gloucester in order to circumvent the contract's restriction on performances within 25 miles of a major city.

That's... awful. If you've ever been even remotely involved in community theater productions, you know that they're labors of love, rather than any serious moneymaking opportunity. These are people who put their hearts and souls into putting on a performance for their community and now an asshole producer and his high priced lawyers from Hollywood come barging in threatening them with bogus damages for a putting on a different play that they properly licensed.

People should boycott Rudin/Sorkin's production and go see a local community production instead.

Filed Under: aaron sorkin, broadway, community theater, copyright, evil, harper lee, scott rudin, to kill a mockingbird
Companies: dramatic publishing company

How Should Facebook Respond To The Social Network Movie?

from the tread-carefully dept

As you probably know by now, there's a movie coming out this fall, called Social Network, which is sorta, kinda, maybe an extremely fictionalized version of the story behind Facebook. It was based on a book by Ben Mezrich, which was already a fictionalized account of the founding of Facebook -- based on notes from a disgruntled co-founder, with Mezrich taking significant creative license to fill in lots of blanks. Then, famed writer Aaron Sorkin wrote the script, passing it through a second fictionalized filter. And, not surprisingly, the folks at Facebook are not at all pleased with the movie, which doesn't exactly portray Mark Zuckerberg or Facebook in a very nice light.

Apparently Facebook execs are debating what to do about the movie, and it's almost surprising that they haven't tried to take legal action -- because that's almost what you'd expect these days. Of course, they probably realize that doing so will only get the movie more attention (though, it certainly looks like the movie is going to get plenty of attention already). Yet in an age where "publicity rights" lawsuits are becoming more common and many movie makers feel they need to secure the rights of anyone and any company that shows up in a film, it's actually somewhat surprising that this particular film actually was made.

But given that Facebook execs are trying to figure out what to do about the film and how to respond to it, I'm curious what folks here think. I think I would go with the simplest of all solutions: a single page that explains why the movie is a greatly fictionalized account, and not an accurate depiction of either the company or its employees, past or current, and then just stay quiet otherwise. What else would you suggest?

Filed Under: aaron sorkin, facebook, mark zuckerberg, movies, social network
Companies: facebook