Why can't films and TV accurately portray hackers?

Indeed, this is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect:

"Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia."

I hate this because it suspends my suspension of disbelief. I can only think of three instances of tv shows and films that get it right: the US version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (at least she uses a terminal emulator and ssh); The Social Network; and Mr. Robot. It's so commonly botched that I get really excited when someone gets it right. It doesn't even have to be perfect; just not laughably ridiculous.

The same reason they fail at representing the Occult. 95% of it is not flashy.

I spend a great deal of my time reading, be it new tech documents, papers, or other findings that interest me. Or I read musty old tomes, scans from Oxford library and wherever on mysticism and occultism.

Do you know how exciting it is to show someone reading for hours? Not very. No, people have very low attention spans, and can barely read a facebook post or moderately sized comment. Discussing intricacies of anything on TV is verboten. Small bites are acceptable, and even better if they have flashy and pretty graphics or effects.

So instead, dramatic "interpretations" are used, to ill effect. Insert CSI "zoom - zoom - zoom - caught them", "uber hackers" that can make blenders turn on remotely, to "evil warlocks" that kill at a glance. It's all theater, and badly done at that.

From the article you linked...

"Professionals worry that jurors may acquit guilty defendants because forensic evidence is not presented by the prosecution at trial."

How is that bad?

When I first saw the "This is Unix ... I know this" scene in Jurassic Park, I had to restrain myself from leaping up in the theater shouting "YES!!"

All those lost hours typing at a green-screen terminal qualify me to be the hero in a Hollywood movie too!