19 February 2000

But even if Harry did enough fact-checking to seem reasonable to you and you're inclined towards sympathy to AICN, there are a few more negatives worth remembering. Harry didn't know the source. Harry bought the logic of the source without any real back-up. Even though he had spun a yarn, the source, by way of his own e-mails, indicated that he had no real knowledge about the Academy (much less being someone "deep in the halls of the Academy") and that this material was completely unprotected on the 'Net. That lack of protection should have been the biggest red flag of all. You can say a lot of things about the Academy, but that they aren't security obsessive is not one of them.

And in the aftermath, Harry made one serious mistake which he still doesn't seem to feel contrite about (it's about the only thing) and which still bothers me. That was printing the instructions on how to break into "the Academy computer" after the list turned out to be wrong. Quoting Harry: "When I put the I.P. address up, I was still under the belief that the address was that of an Academy server, not an individual's computer.... otherwise, I would have never of put the I.P. address up." Well, I don't think that being malicious in the general direction of the Academy is illegal, but why would it be okay to give out their I.P. address (which again, it was not)? Wouldn't that cause them more trouble? Hadn't there been enough aggravation caused them?

One more thing. Harry told me days ago that Matt Drudge was sent the same materials he was sent. Drudge never ran anything from the e-mailed list and didn't, in fact, post a link to Harry's story for about 8 hours after it hit. When asked by e-mail why he didn't run anything, Drudge responded, "I was not offered anything of the kind. I hate movies. Drudge." Unfortunately for Drudge, Harry still had the original "INSIDER INFORMATION" e-mail... which is addressed to both Drudge and Harry and now I have it. And now you know that Drudge was both smart enough not to bite and dumb enough to lie about being offered the material in the first place.

Finally, for the sake of overzealous disclosure, I should remind you that I do a radio show for KABC-790 radio here in L.A. I have no professional or personal association with ABC.com, but I am in some small way in the family. But my information about who did what when and what computer systems were involved comes exclusively from Harry Knowles and his original source (via separate communications). As far as I know, AOL/Time-Warner has no relationship with anyone that requires disclosure here.

I think that covers the whole shebang. Harry is apologizing left and right and is clearly embarrassed. He concludes: "I think the most important revelation regarding this entire affair is the openness of CABLE MODEM subscribers.... of whom, I am one.... and believe me... I'm in the process of installing my own firewall on my local computer.... sigh... the side of the net I loathe." More irony coming from a guy who prints so much private information. And for the record, I don't think that he's diminishing the fact that he made a big mistake by calling this "the most important revelation." On the other hand, I think he'd print stuff like this again if he could prove it was true. So, what is the lesson?

You tell me. I didn't print any of the mail from Tuesday's explosion over this issue. But now that you have the whole story and we've all had some time to get perspective, I will print some of your letters about this next week if you write. What lessons have we learned?

READER OF THE DAY: It's a miracle! A reader "just" writing about the Oscars: Auntie EM writes:

A - As much as I love Kevin Spacey and American Beauty, what's up with the sudden re-release of the film? What, they haven't cashed in enough on this puppy?! I really hate when the studios do this little pre-Oscar frenzy thing, because I think they greatly underestimate the intelligence of their audience. It was a great movie, but if I want to see it again, it's gonna be a Blockbuster night!

B - I have to agree with all of the readers who commented on the Academy's sudden jones for honoring big box office films this year like The Green Mile. The pendulum seems to have swung away from recognizing the lesser-known, commercially unsuccessful films that have garnered awards in past years like The English Patient (or anything else from a British studio). So, are we to assume that the Academy's attitude is "screw quality work, let's just give the kids what they want - a money picture vote!" Kinda sickening if that's really the case. And don't even get me started on the gobs of money the studios blow on the elaborate press kits and gift baskets for guests who attend the festivities!!! Like they need the expensive chocolates, toiletries and $8,000 watches! Hey, here's an idea...why not forgo the baskets and spend the money developing GREAT FILMS (or paying off some small third world country's national debt)!!!

C - Please, someone make sure Courtney Love can't get a babysitter on Oscar night!!

E ME: One thing that always happens this time of year is that people get a sense of the Academy as monolith. And that's not quite fair. On the other hand, there is a pendulum effect, the same way there is in any mass culture, no doubt. Also, money doesn't develop great films, people do. What do you think?