The Interview and the ethics of reporting the Sony hacks

This week, Sony Pictures decided to halt The Interview's release as threats of violence against film-goers pushed some theatres to drop it. The move came after internal Sony emails and documents were leaked to the press. The FBI says North Korean hackers are behind it all, striking back against Sony for backing the satirical comedy about assassinating Kim Jong-un. But does reporting on the hacked Sony emails play into the hands of the hackers? Jacob Weisberg editor-in-chief of The Slate Group, says yes. Andrew Wallenstein, co-editor in chief of Variety magazine, says no. Brent speaks with both of them.

The case for publishing the hacked Sony data

Andrew Wallenstein of Variety magazine argues that publishing the hacked data is problematic, but necessary. Here's part of his conversation with Brent.

Okay, so you say publishing the stolen data is problematic but necessary and I'd like you to break that down for me. First of all, why is it problematic?

It's problematic because the honest truth is we're being used as pawns by the hackers and we're also taking advantage of the situation where a company that has been attacked and has been vulnerable — we're taking advantage of that vulnerability.

So then why is publishing the data necessary?

Simply because first and foremost, we can't ignore it. It is everywhere. It's not as if Variety, my publication, exclusively determines whether this content gets out there. When you are dealing with dozens of blogs and newspapers, amplified by social media, talking about issues in the issues that Variety covers as closely as it does — to simply abstain, we would look like we were completely out of the loop of what I can assure you everybody in Hollywood is talking about.

Here's a headline from Variety this week: "Leaked Sony emails reveal nasty exchanges and insults." So what's the value to the public in reporting those private exchanges?

Look, I can understand on a level that might seem kind of gossipy. You have to understand when you're Variety and you're writing about the sort of movers and shakers in this industry, day in day out, what they are fighting about impacts the content that we write about. How could we talk about, for instance, these allegedly racist emails that could endanger Amy Pascal's job but at the same time not refer to the content of the email. We can't just sort of tiptoe around the tough spots here, we have to dive in just like everyone else.

But do you think there's an ethical problem in ignoring the way that information was procured in the first place?

We're not ignoring it. It's a decision made with a heavy heart. But ultimately we feel that the circumstances involved have left us with no choice. At the end of the day, my prime directive as the editor in chief of Variety is to be writing, analyzing, covering the things that everyone in this business are talking about. And I can assure you, nobody in this business is talking about anything but what has gone on in these emails that have leaked.

​

In his editorial for Slate, Jacob Weisberg argues that publishing this stolen data actually encourages censorship because it looks like you're playing into the hands of hackers who apparently are trying to shut down a film. Does publishing this info makes you a dupe for a supposed North Korean propaganda operation?

I've acknowledged that we are basically serving as pawns to some degree for the hackers however I'm not going to go so far as Mr. Weisberg does to suggest that we're now part of some sort of censorship effort. Certainly, we're not doing that consciously and I would even question whether his entire point really holds water.

The case for not publishing the hacked Sony data

Jacob Weisberg of The Slate Group argues that publishing the hacked data encourages censorship. Here's part of his conversation with Brent.

Jacob, you argue that publishing information from the hacks helps censorship. How so?

Well, whoever hacked Sony — probably the North Koreans or people supporting or affiliated with North Koreans — want to prevent the release of this movie, and want to punish Sony for making this movie. And I think by helping the attackers, the cyber-terrorists, do this damage and carry out this threat which has been successful beyond probably their wildest imagining, I think it's a kind of collaboration in censorship.

So to be clear, a media outlet that publishes information that was gained through this hack is then, in your view, supporting what might be a North Korean effort to shut down this satire of Kim Jong-un?

Yes, I don't want to be overly categorical about it, I mean these are complicated ethical decisions that one has to think about, the trade-off and the balance of issues with any kind of leak and particularly with stolen data and hacks. This came up in one context with Wikileaks with the Snowden revelations.

But I think in those other cases, there was a strong public interest argument. And in fact after those leaks, the president of the United States said he thought the policy had gone too far and proposed changes in it. Here, the disclosure about what have been the private emails of the Sony executives tattling about the movie stars, people's salaries — I don't think you can make a very strong case for public interest around any of that. I think there's a strong public curiosity.

But can't you argue that refusing to publish this information itself is a form of self-imposed censorship?

We journalists decide not to publish all sorts of things all the time because it's not relevant, it's not news, because it violates someone's privacy. The burden of proof, as it were, is on deciding to publish something. I think the justification needs to be strong and I haven't heard the journalists who've been most eager about publishing these hacks provide really any justification for what they're doing beyond the, isn't this fun?

But you have reported on aspects of the leak, you talked about the gender pay gap between Sony executives. So you have to make a nuanced decision as well...

Yeah, and I haven't made a categorical decision on behalf of Slate. But I think editors, including here, are being thoughtful and judicious about weighing and balancing. Another case was about these sort of racially-charged jokes that Amy Pascal, the co-head of the studio was making with the producer, Scott Rudin. They then apologized in public for the things they said in these private emails. It seems to me that puts it firmly in the public domain, whether or not it was beforehand.

If Sony hadn't shut it down, would you have gone to see The Interview in theatres? Would you feel safe doing that?

Of course! I think it's preposterous. This is one of the lamest threats — this is like someone pulling a fire alarm stunt. The FBI hasn't been taking it seriously, no one took it seriously. This was really an expression of extreme cowardice on the part of the exhibitors.