1
00:00:07,400 --> 00:00:10,719
Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of Strictly Business, the podcast in

2
00:00:10,760 --> 00:00:13,039
Speaker 1: which we speak with some of the brightest minds working

3
00:00:13,119 --> 00:00:17,320
Speaker 1: in the media business today. I'm Andrew Wallenstein with Variety.

4
00:00:18,000 --> 00:00:22,920
Speaker 1: Exactly ten years ago today, I published a commentary defending

5
00:00:22,960 --> 00:00:27,000
Speaker 1: the decision to publish the contents of the Sony Hack

6
00:00:27,480 --> 00:00:31,040
Speaker 1: in Variety, the publication where I then served as co

7
00:00:31,240 --> 00:00:34,320
Speaker 1: editor in chief. And so in this episode of the

8
00:00:34,360 --> 00:00:38,320
Speaker 1: Strictly Business podcast, with the distance of a decade's worth

9
00:00:38,320 --> 00:00:41,839
Speaker 1: of perspective, I'm going to revisit a decision that, if

10
00:00:41,840 --> 00:00:46,479
Speaker 1: I'm being candid, leaves me with some regret more in

11
00:00:46,600 --> 00:00:57,360
Speaker 1: just a moment. Do you know seven to ten consumers

12
00:00:57,400 --> 00:01:01,760
Speaker 1: crave more authentic, culturally diverse stories in media. That's just

13
00:01:01,800 --> 00:01:05,520
Speaker 1: one of the insights Amazon Ads uncovered, and it's from

14
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:09,880
Speaker 1: Ads to Zeitgeist Research. The study, which surveyed over twenty

15
00:01:09,920 --> 00:01:15,360
Speaker 1: one thousand respondents across twelve countries, identifies three key trends,

16
00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:19,560
Speaker 1: including the shift towards a more globally integrated culture, the

17
00:01:19,680 --> 00:01:24,399
Speaker 1: rise of interactive and collaborative content creation, and consumers desire

18
00:01:24,440 --> 00:01:29,760
Speaker 1: for more distinctive voices and original content. Visit Advertising dot

19
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:35,040
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com, slash culture Trends. To view the full

20
00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:38,520
Speaker 1: report and learn how your brands can connect with audiences

21
00:01:38,880 --> 00:01:47,280
Speaker 1: by participating in today's cultural conversations. Welcome back to strictly business.

22
00:01:47,520 --> 00:01:50,720
Speaker 1: I've encountered some sticky wickets over the course of my

23
00:01:51,080 --> 00:01:54,520
Speaker 1: thirty plus year career, but I have to say that

24
00:01:54,640 --> 00:01:58,320
Speaker 1: decision to publish the contents of the Sony hack, well,

25
00:01:58,840 --> 00:02:01,640
Speaker 1: that may have been the stickiest. I'm not going to

26
00:02:01,680 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 1: say if I had to do it all over again,

27
00:02:03,720 --> 00:02:06,400
Speaker 1: I would do it differently because I understand why I

28
00:02:06,560 --> 00:02:10,120
Speaker 1: did what I did then. But looking back on the

29
00:02:10,160 --> 00:02:13,320
Speaker 1: hack in hindsight, I wish I'd taken a different tack,

30
00:02:13,919 --> 00:02:17,680
Speaker 1: and today I'll explain why in detail. By now, the

31
00:02:17,720 --> 00:02:22,200
Speaker 1: basics are a well known chapter in relatively recent Hollywood history.

32
00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:26,880
Speaker 1: On November twenty fourth, twenty fourteen, a group of hackers

33
00:02:26,919 --> 00:02:30,359
Speaker 1: based in North Korea, calling themselves Guardians of Peace, began

34
00:02:30,480 --> 00:02:34,440
Speaker 1: what you might call a virtual terror campaign against Sony

35
00:02:34,480 --> 00:02:37,959
Speaker 1: Pictures an objection to the movie The Interview and its

36
00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:42,240
Speaker 1: depiction of their leader, Kim Jong un. Mister rapport, I'm

37
00:02:42,240 --> 00:02:44,320
Speaker 1: an agent Lacy with Central Intelligence.

38
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:47,360
Speaker 2: You too, are going to be in a room alone

39
00:02:47,360 --> 00:02:47,760
Speaker 2: with Kim.

40
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:51,799
Speaker 1: We got the interview. The CIA would love it if

41
00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:57,240
Speaker 1: you could take him out, Take him out, like for drinks,

42
00:02:57,280 --> 00:02:58,640
Speaker 1: like to dinner, out of the town.

43
00:02:59,000 --> 00:03:01,079
Speaker 2: No, take him out.

44
00:03:01,360 --> 00:03:03,400
Speaker 1: Do you want us to kill the leader of North Korea?

45
00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:03,800
Speaker 3: Yes.

46
00:03:07,280 --> 00:03:10,800
Speaker 1: As part of that campaign, they stole and leaked mountains

47
00:03:10,800 --> 00:03:15,640
Speaker 1: of private information of all sorts from Sony, including highly

48
00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:21,519
Speaker 1: sensitive emails from its executives concerning their business. Variety was

49
00:03:21,560 --> 00:03:24,800
Speaker 1: one of many press outlets around the world that published

50
00:03:24,800 --> 00:03:28,160
Speaker 1: some of the information that emerged from emails and other

51
00:03:28,280 --> 00:03:30,120
Speaker 1: materials unearthed by the hack.

52
00:03:31,040 --> 00:03:31,680
Speaker 2: Well, I was not.

53
00:03:31,680 --> 00:03:35,000
Speaker 1: Alone in making that decision. It was a controversial one.

54
00:03:35,160 --> 00:03:37,760
Speaker 1: When I think a lot about to this day, I'd

55
00:03:37,760 --> 00:03:40,280
Speaker 1: say it's even fair to say it has haunted me

56
00:03:40,360 --> 00:03:44,680
Speaker 1: these years. I can remember representatives of the studio begging

57
00:03:44,800 --> 00:03:48,160
Speaker 1: us not to publish, citing the damage being done to

58
00:03:48,200 --> 00:03:52,800
Speaker 1: their employees and business associates whose privacy was being invaded.

59
00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:56,920
Speaker 1: I think they felt particularly betrayed that a publication like Variety,

60
00:03:57,480 --> 00:04:00,880
Speaker 1: which has been such an integral institution and the entertainment

61
00:04:00,880 --> 00:04:04,960
Speaker 1: industry for so long, would stoop so low. And though

62
00:04:05,000 --> 00:04:07,720
Speaker 1: I felt I had solid logical ground on which I

63
00:04:07,760 --> 00:04:11,280
Speaker 1: was able to make my decision to publish the Hacks disclosures.

64
00:04:12,040 --> 00:04:15,160
Speaker 1: I admitted in the opening words of my article defending

65
00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:19,400
Speaker 1: that decision that I did not feel good about it. Quote.

66
00:04:20,080 --> 00:04:23,440
Speaker 1: The more sony pictures data keeps leaking, the more my

67
00:04:23,680 --> 00:04:27,120
Speaker 1: moral compass spins like a weather van in a hurricane.

68
00:04:27,760 --> 00:04:30,360
Speaker 1: What just a week ago seemed such a clear cut

69
00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:33,480
Speaker 1: case of doing what my instincts have told me to

70
00:04:33,520 --> 00:04:36,599
Speaker 1: do at every other moment of my career is now

71
00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:41,640
Speaker 1: making me increasingly queasy. End quote. You know, I still

72
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:45,719
Speaker 1: recall that feeling, that bitterness in my gut that people

73
00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:48,799
Speaker 1: get whenever they have to make any decision that doesn't

74
00:04:48,880 --> 00:04:52,440
Speaker 1: feel right, even though you know it's not wrong. But

75
00:04:52,520 --> 00:04:54,840
Speaker 1: here's the funny thing. When I look back ten years later,

76
00:04:55,480 --> 00:04:58,480
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't remember the stories we stuck

77
00:04:58,520 --> 00:05:02,600
Speaker 1: our neck out to publish that emerged from the hack. Really,

78
00:05:02,680 --> 00:05:05,440
Speaker 1: it occurred to me recently that I couldn't remember a

79
00:05:05,560 --> 00:05:08,840
Speaker 1: single revelation from that time, which struck me as odd,

80
00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:12,240
Speaker 1: because why take a principled stand to publish something that

81
00:05:12,360 --> 00:05:16,719
Speaker 1: wasn't even memorable enough to stick in my brain? Years later,

82
00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:21,040
Speaker 1: A fresh doubt started to gnaught me how principled a decision.

83
00:05:21,040 --> 00:05:23,599
Speaker 1: Could this have been if I couldn't even remember what

84
00:05:23,680 --> 00:05:27,160
Speaker 1: I was taking a stand for. Of course, a little

85
00:05:27,200 --> 00:05:31,120
Speaker 1: googling brought it all flooding back, a random hodgepodge of

86
00:05:31,240 --> 00:05:36,719
Speaker 1: fairly gossipy tidbits, sony executive and a movie producer making crude,

87
00:05:36,880 --> 00:05:41,960
Speaker 1: racist jokes about then President Obama, another one calling Angelina

88
00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:48,480
Speaker 1: Jolie a quote minimally talented, spoiled brat head quote, budget

89
00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 1: and salary figures from the movie the interview Celebrity Hotel aliases, Yeah, no, wonder,

90
00:05:54,760 --> 00:05:57,320
Speaker 1: I couldn't remember this stuff right, But I'll tell you

91
00:05:57,440 --> 00:06:01,280
Speaker 1: what I do remember, quite vividly from that a decade ago,

92
00:06:01,760 --> 00:06:05,599
Speaker 1: the pointed criticism that came for journalist decision makers like

93
00:06:05,680 --> 00:06:10,480
Speaker 1: myself from some pretty prominent celebrities. Not just any celebrities,

94
00:06:10,520 --> 00:06:14,480
Speaker 1: mind you, but a group of actors, writers, and directors

95
00:06:14,560 --> 00:06:16,840
Speaker 1: that if I had made a top ten list of

96
00:06:16,880 --> 00:06:20,599
Speaker 1: the Hollywood luminaries I admired most they'd all be on

97
00:06:20,640 --> 00:06:25,480
Speaker 1: that list. So that felt good. We're talking Brad Pitt,

98
00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:28,840
Speaker 1: Judd Apatow. But let's start with the one that cut

99
00:06:28,880 --> 00:06:31,680
Speaker 1: deeper than them all, because it was the only one

100
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:36,520
Speaker 1: that was targeted directly at me. The great screenwriter Aaron

101
00:06:36,600 --> 00:06:40,880
Speaker 1: Sorkin not only wrote an op ed excoriating those like

102
00:06:40,920 --> 00:06:44,159
Speaker 1: myself who published the contents of the Sony Hack, but

103
00:06:44,240 --> 00:06:47,000
Speaker 1: in his piece singled me out and even linked to

104
00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:49,760
Speaker 1: my commentary, which I thought was really cool at the time.

105
00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:52,680
Speaker 1: But let's get to the not cool part, which is

106
00:06:52,680 --> 00:06:57,440
Speaker 1: where he mercilessly mocked me, and I quote the co

107
00:06:57,640 --> 00:07:00,880
Speaker 1: editor in chief of Variety tells us he decided that

108
00:07:00,920 --> 00:07:05,480
Speaker 1: the leaks were to use his word newsworthy. I'm dying

109
00:07:05,480 --> 00:07:07,960
Speaker 1: to ask him what part of the studio's post production

110
00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:13,000
Speaker 1: notes on Cameron Crowe's new project is newsworthy? So newsworthy

111
00:07:13,000 --> 00:07:15,640
Speaker 1: that it's worth carrying out the wishes of people who've

112
00:07:15,640 --> 00:07:18,320
Speaker 1: said they're going to murder families and who have so

113
00:07:18,480 --> 00:07:22,960
Speaker 1: far done everything they threatened to do. Newsworthy. As the

114
00:07:23,040 --> 00:07:26,520
Speaker 1: character Innigo Montoya said in The Princess Bride, I do

115
00:07:26,560 --> 00:07:30,080
Speaker 1: not think it means what you think it means. End quote,

116
00:07:30,600 --> 00:07:33,720
Speaker 1: not contend to simply let his feelings be known. In

117
00:07:33,800 --> 00:07:38,240
Speaker 1: a New York Times op ed, Sorkin actually went on

118
00:07:38,360 --> 00:07:42,480
Speaker 1: The Today Show to pound the point home. Here's a clip.

119
00:07:42,800 --> 00:07:46,240
Speaker 4: Oscar winning screenwriter and playwright Aaron Sorkin. He's taking aim

120
00:07:46,280 --> 00:07:48,200
Speaker 4: at the media and a New York Times op ed

121
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:51,680
Speaker 4: piece for publishing some of the emails and stolen information

122
00:07:51,720 --> 00:07:54,440
Speaker 4: from that massive cyber attack against Sony Pictures. Erind's with

123
00:07:54,520 --> 00:07:55,040
Speaker 4: us this morning.

124
00:07:55,040 --> 00:07:56,040
Speaker 3: Good morning, good morning.

125
00:07:56,240 --> 00:07:57,840
Speaker 4: Quote a little bit from your op ed, you say

126
00:07:57,880 --> 00:08:00,760
Speaker 4: that the media has basically been quote more treason is

127
00:08:01,120 --> 00:08:04,240
Speaker 4: and spectacularly dishonorable in publishing this. You do have a

128
00:08:04,280 --> 00:08:06,480
Speaker 4: way with words, will grant you that? Is it your

129
00:08:06,520 --> 00:08:09,520
Speaker 4: belief that the press should not have published this at all?

130
00:08:09,920 --> 00:08:13,640
Speaker 2: Yes, listen, I think that I talk about this in

131
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:17,400
Speaker 2: the op ed. There are certainly times when the press

132
00:08:17,440 --> 00:08:20,320
Speaker 2: should has an obligation to publish things that we're stolen.

133
00:08:20,680 --> 00:08:22,880
Speaker 2: I talk about the Pentagon papers, but you don't even

134
00:08:22,960 --> 00:08:26,680
Speaker 2: have to use that as as your standard. Loosen the

135
00:08:26,720 --> 00:08:29,600
Speaker 2: standards a little bit. Is there anything in these emails

136
00:08:29,640 --> 00:08:32,360
Speaker 2: at all that's in the public interest that points to

137
00:08:32,480 --> 00:08:38,280
Speaker 2: wrongdoing at the company that helps anyone in any way?

138
00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:40,960
Speaker 2: There isn't. There's just gossip there. You can loosen the

139
00:08:40,960 --> 00:08:43,480
Speaker 2: standards even more, but ultimately you have to dispense with

140
00:08:43,559 --> 00:08:47,240
Speaker 2: standards entirely in order to be okay with publishing these emails.

141
00:08:47,280 --> 00:08:50,280
Speaker 1: Wow, So this is a good place to begin walking

142
00:08:50,320 --> 00:08:55,079
Speaker 1: through the reasoning behind my decision to publish. What Sorkin

143
00:08:55,200 --> 00:08:57,920
Speaker 1: is essentially saying here is that it's not as if

144
00:08:57,960 --> 00:09:01,600
Speaker 1: the press shouldn't publish stolen in information of any kind

145
00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:05,600
Speaker 1: under any circumstances. But he is setting the bar above

146
00:09:05,760 --> 00:09:10,240
Speaker 1: mere gossip and at what he calls wrongdoing, which we

147
00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:14,679
Speaker 1: can presume means examples of corruption or malfeasance, and not

148
00:09:14,760 --> 00:09:18,720
Speaker 1: just filmmakers making racist jokes about the president. And I

149
00:09:18,760 --> 00:09:22,360
Speaker 1: invoke that infamous example when I draw the distinction to

150
00:09:22,400 --> 00:09:25,040
Speaker 1: make a point, by the way, which is to say,

151
00:09:25,520 --> 00:09:27,679
Speaker 1: where does one draw the line at defining what exactly

152
00:09:27,720 --> 00:09:32,960
Speaker 1: wrongdoing is? But let's not get caught up there. Regardless,

153
00:09:33,120 --> 00:09:37,520
Speaker 1: for Sorkin, wrongdoing sets the bar for what he refers

154
00:09:37,559 --> 00:09:40,959
Speaker 1: to as the public interest. And of course there's the

155
00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:43,040
Speaker 1: other phrase he has fun mocking me with in his

156
00:09:43,120 --> 00:09:48,680
Speaker 1: op ed Newsworthy Look in all candor. These phrases are

157
00:09:48,840 --> 00:09:52,719
Speaker 1: so amorphous as to have become over the years meaningless.

158
00:09:53,320 --> 00:09:57,400
Speaker 1: Any clever editor can bend them to accommodate the raison

159
00:09:57,520 --> 00:10:01,120
Speaker 1: to etra of all but the most vacuous pace of journalism.

160
00:10:01,360 --> 00:10:04,160
Speaker 1: During the Sony hack, I read many a justification from

161
00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:07,520
Speaker 1: others in the press about how publishing the hacked emails

162
00:10:07,640 --> 00:10:10,319
Speaker 1: was okay because it held up a mirror to how

163
00:10:10,360 --> 00:10:13,719
Speaker 1: the business of culture truly operates. I thought it was

164
00:10:13,840 --> 00:10:17,560
Speaker 1: hogwash then, and I think it's hogwash now. Not that

165
00:10:17,600 --> 00:10:20,240
Speaker 1: it doesn't hold up a mirror. It does, but that

166
00:10:20,280 --> 00:10:24,520
Speaker 1: the mirror alone doesn't justify the invasion of privacy. But

167
00:10:24,920 --> 00:10:27,880
Speaker 1: I also didn't believe there has to be something truly

168
00:10:28,040 --> 00:10:32,880
Speaker 1: revelatory on the level of, say, wrongdoing, as Sorkin might argue,

169
00:10:33,480 --> 00:10:36,200
Speaker 1: in order to rise to the level of being worthy

170
00:10:36,240 --> 00:10:39,600
Speaker 1: of publishing. Now, to explain what I mean by that,

171
00:10:39,760 --> 00:10:42,559
Speaker 1: I want to explain what it is exactly I've done

172
00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:46,240
Speaker 1: for a living for the past twenty years, because it's

173
00:10:46,280 --> 00:10:49,320
Speaker 1: at the core of my argument. You know, people who

174
00:10:49,400 --> 00:10:51,760
Speaker 1: aren't in my business ask me from time to time

175
00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:55,880
Speaker 1: where does news come from? And I know there's a

176
00:10:55,920 --> 00:10:58,600
Speaker 1: certain kind of naivete that comes with the question. It

177
00:10:58,640 --> 00:11:02,199
Speaker 1: almost sounds like they're asking if babies are delivered by storks.

178
00:11:02,800 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 1: But there is some nuance to the answer. So let

179
00:11:05,520 --> 00:11:09,040
Speaker 1: me lay out the answer for a bit here. I

180
00:11:09,160 --> 00:11:12,720
Speaker 1: like to think of news coming in four different channels. First,

181
00:11:12,880 --> 00:11:17,360
Speaker 1: there's what's on the record, through so called official channels.

182
00:11:17,840 --> 00:11:21,319
Speaker 1: Reporters get press releases, and there are sometimes press conferences,

183
00:11:21,360 --> 00:11:25,000
Speaker 1: press calls, presentations, events, all these dog and pony shows

184
00:11:25,480 --> 00:11:29,240
Speaker 1: where there is a controlled flow of informations from companies

185
00:11:29,280 --> 00:11:31,080
Speaker 1: to the press, where they tell us what they'd like

186
00:11:31,160 --> 00:11:34,560
Speaker 1: us to know about their companies. But what separates the

187
00:11:34,559 --> 00:11:37,160
Speaker 1: best publications from the run of the mill publications is

188
00:11:37,200 --> 00:11:41,880
Speaker 1: the information they get from others, shall we say, unofficial channels.

189
00:11:42,360 --> 00:11:46,120
Speaker 1: For instance, there is a second channel, let's say, the

190
00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:50,559
Speaker 1: information that gets distributed off the record that not everyone gets.

191
00:11:50,880 --> 00:11:53,840
Speaker 1: This is the information that's often marked exclusive, that gives

192
00:11:53,840 --> 00:11:58,280
Speaker 1: you reason to read one publication and not another. Now,

193
00:11:58,320 --> 00:12:00,480
Speaker 1: just to confuse you a little bit, Often times the

194
00:12:00,559 --> 00:12:03,840
Speaker 1: off the record information comes from the same people that

195
00:12:03,960 --> 00:12:06,960
Speaker 1: gives you the on the record information, they just don't

196
00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:10,839
Speaker 1: identify themselves. That's the third channel of news, what i'd

197
00:12:10,920 --> 00:12:15,160
Speaker 1: call a leak. They're deliberately giving you information, but not

198
00:12:15,400 --> 00:12:19,280
Speaker 1: through the official channels they typically give to everyone for

199
00:12:19,360 --> 00:12:23,920
Speaker 1: one strategic reason or another. But lastly, and most importantly,

200
00:12:23,960 --> 00:12:27,320
Speaker 1: there's a fourth channel where news is sourced, where the

201
00:12:27,440 --> 00:12:32,000
Speaker 1: reporter secures information they're not supposed to get. It might

202
00:12:32,040 --> 00:12:35,880
Speaker 1: come from other people within the organization, or it might

203
00:12:35,920 --> 00:12:39,560
Speaker 1: come from the ecosystem of companies that operate around the

204
00:12:39,720 --> 00:12:43,680
Speaker 1: organization that might be divulging the information for all sorts

205
00:12:43,720 --> 00:12:47,120
Speaker 1: of reasons. But the very best reporters are those that

206
00:12:47,160 --> 00:12:50,840
Speaker 1: can traffic in that information. Now, on the entertainment beat,

207
00:12:51,080 --> 00:12:53,080
Speaker 1: these are the people who get the scoop on say,

208
00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:56,280
Speaker 1: the big movie coming together before the studio is ready

209
00:12:56,320 --> 00:13:00,240
Speaker 1: to announce it. Sometimes it gets even more sophisticated than that.

210
00:13:00,280 --> 00:13:03,280
Speaker 1: We could break news of a multi billion dollar m

211
00:13:03,320 --> 00:13:06,559
Speaker 1: and a deal before it's supposed to be announced. They

212
00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:09,000
Speaker 1: even get the details of what the CEOs may have

213
00:13:09,040 --> 00:13:11,840
Speaker 1: said to each other in a private conversation to make

214
00:13:11,960 --> 00:13:15,520
Speaker 1: said deal happen. I myself know of a few stories

215
00:13:15,520 --> 00:13:20,760
Speaker 1: where financial documents were anonymously snail mailed to me, referring

216
00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:24,360
Speaker 1: to all sorts of entertainment industry dealings, in one instance,

217
00:13:24,440 --> 00:13:28,120
Speaker 1: a fairly major deal where I may have no idea

218
00:13:28,200 --> 00:13:31,800
Speaker 1: of how the info was obtained, but once I confirmed it,

219
00:13:32,280 --> 00:13:35,120
Speaker 1: I ran with it. Now, why am I telling you

220
00:13:35,160 --> 00:13:38,480
Speaker 1: all this, because when you think about the information that

221
00:13:38,559 --> 00:13:41,640
Speaker 1: came about and the Sony hack. It's because it really

222
00:13:41,760 --> 00:13:45,000
Speaker 1: wasn't all that different than the Fourth Channel information I

223
00:13:45,160 --> 00:13:49,679
Speaker 1: traffic in almost every day. So when I hear the

224
00:13:49,720 --> 00:13:53,160
Speaker 1: Aaron Sorkins of the world push back against it, what

225
00:13:53,200 --> 00:13:56,200
Speaker 1: I'm hearing, to some extent is them really wishing what

226
00:13:56,320 --> 00:13:59,480
Speaker 1: the Hollywood establishment more or less fought with me about

227
00:13:59,600 --> 00:14:02,520
Speaker 1: every day back when I was co editor in chief,

228
00:14:03,200 --> 00:14:06,720
Speaker 1: controlling the flow of information that gets into the public

229
00:14:07,200 --> 00:14:11,520
Speaker 1: on their terms. Now I know what you're thinking. The

230
00:14:11,559 --> 00:14:14,280
Speaker 1: background explanation I just gave is all well and good,

231
00:14:14,320 --> 00:14:19,120
Speaker 1: but it's irrelevant because the Sony hack isn't your ordinary circumstances.

232
00:14:19,440 --> 00:14:22,560
Speaker 1: This wasn't some I don't know mogul snitching to you

233
00:14:22,640 --> 00:14:26,360
Speaker 1: about a rival's extramarital affair with some startlet he cast

234
00:14:26,400 --> 00:14:30,600
Speaker 1: in his next movie. This information came from a terrorist

235
00:14:30,720 --> 00:14:34,359
Speaker 1: threatening people's lives, and I was aiding and abetting them.

236
00:14:34,720 --> 00:14:38,160
Speaker 1: As Seth Rogan, star of the interview, said at the time,

237
00:14:38,440 --> 00:14:43,400
Speaker 1: quote everyone is doing exactly what these criminals want. It's

238
00:14:43,440 --> 00:14:49,160
Speaker 1: stolen information that media outlets are directly profiting from. End quote.

239
00:14:49,640 --> 00:14:54,240
Speaker 1: Look I get that. I acknowledged then that the hackers

240
00:14:54,240 --> 00:14:58,840
Speaker 1: were essentially playing the press as winning pawns. I likened

241
00:14:58,880 --> 00:15:02,800
Speaker 1: us as zombies, finelessly chasing any available information no matter what.

242
00:15:03,240 --> 00:15:06,480
Speaker 1: But you also have to understand the slippery slope the

243
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:11,640
Speaker 1: situation had the press sliding down into. As I just explained,

244
00:15:12,080 --> 00:15:15,720
Speaker 1: my job is getting information about the business of entertainment,

245
00:15:16,000 --> 00:15:20,040
Speaker 1: both important and not so important all the time. So

246
00:15:20,200 --> 00:15:23,400
Speaker 1: this time the information came in bulk instead of the

247
00:15:23,520 --> 00:15:26,720
Speaker 1: usual tidbits. Now, is there some kind of tonnage level

248
00:15:26,760 --> 00:15:30,680
Speaker 1: where I should cut off the acceptable amounts of unauthorized

249
00:15:30,720 --> 00:15:34,360
Speaker 1: information I'm allowed to accept? And more to the point,

250
00:15:35,280 --> 00:15:38,240
Speaker 1: as for how savory a character I am allowed to

251
00:15:38,400 --> 00:15:42,440
Speaker 1: accept the information from? Where exactly do I draw the

252
00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:47,040
Speaker 1: line between a North Korean hacker? Hacker? I should say,

253
00:15:47,320 --> 00:15:52,440
Speaker 1: and for example, your typical Hollywood agent isn't. The simplest solution,

254
00:15:53,160 --> 00:15:57,920
Speaker 1: given the impossibility of drawing clear lines, is to not

255
00:15:58,400 --> 00:16:01,720
Speaker 1: draw lines at all. I also think you need to

256
00:16:01,760 --> 00:16:05,280
Speaker 1: take into account the time in which this hack took place.

257
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:08,880
Speaker 1: Twenty fourteen was just a few years removed from the

258
00:16:09,000 --> 00:16:14,280
Speaker 1: dramas of Edward Snowden and years before that WikiLeaks. The

259
00:16:14,400 --> 00:16:17,520
Speaker 1: lessons many learned from their stories was that the ends

260
00:16:17,720 --> 00:16:22,040
Speaker 1: justified the means when it came to stolen information. Never

261
00:16:22,040 --> 00:16:24,640
Speaker 1: mind that Sony is not a government and there didn't

262
00:16:24,680 --> 00:16:27,640
Speaker 1: seem to be any corporate wrongdoing on that company to

263
00:16:27,720 --> 00:16:31,400
Speaker 1: report on. What's actually striking to me to reflect on

264
00:16:31,520 --> 00:16:34,000
Speaker 1: now is how the optics would have been so much

265
00:16:34,040 --> 00:16:37,560
Speaker 1: different in this situation if the hacked company in question

266
00:16:38,120 --> 00:16:41,280
Speaker 1: was one of the bigger tech companies then, like Meta

267
00:16:41,400 --> 00:16:46,200
Speaker 1: or Amazon or Apple. Something tells me, given the regulatory

268
00:16:46,240 --> 00:16:49,760
Speaker 1: scrutiny they've come under for years, it would have changed

269
00:16:49,800 --> 00:16:54,720
Speaker 1: the equation dramatically. And it's ironic actually to be talking

270
00:16:54,760 --> 00:16:57,560
Speaker 1: about a time when the US government was concerned about

271
00:16:57,600 --> 00:17:02,320
Speaker 1: protecting Sony, considering here we are ten years later, and

272
00:17:02,360 --> 00:17:05,800
Speaker 1: there was actually a brief possibility earlier this year that

273
00:17:05,880 --> 00:17:08,879
Speaker 1: Sony could have joined the private e equity group Apollo

274
00:17:09,040 --> 00:17:13,359
Speaker 1: Global Management and pursuing the acquisition of Paramount Global, a

275
00:17:13,520 --> 00:17:17,040
Speaker 1: move that analysts expected would have drawn regulatory scrutiny of

276
00:17:17,080 --> 00:17:20,560
Speaker 1: Sony because they are a foreign company that already owns

277
00:17:20,560 --> 00:17:24,240
Speaker 1: a film and TV studio. It's funny how the tables

278
00:17:24,320 --> 00:17:28,359
Speaker 1: turned depending on the circumstances, you know. I also want

279
00:17:28,400 --> 00:17:31,520
Speaker 1: to address there was criticism that I and many others

280
00:17:31,560 --> 00:17:35,520
Speaker 1: in the media got back then, was that we published

281
00:17:35,520 --> 00:17:40,600
Speaker 1: the Sony Hack content for clicks in all candor, well,

282
00:17:40,640 --> 00:17:43,360
Speaker 1: I'm not going to deny that the web traffic value

283
00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:46,879
Speaker 1: of gossipy articles never entered my mind at that time.

284
00:17:47,640 --> 00:17:52,119
Speaker 1: Anyone who knows anything of an entertainmenttainment about entertainment news

285
00:17:52,160 --> 00:17:55,800
Speaker 1: can tell you that this kind of business minded editorial

286
00:17:55,880 --> 00:17:59,840
Speaker 1: content from the Sony Hack is nowhere near the most

287
00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:04,400
Speaker 1: call it click rich stories that generate the high six

288
00:18:04,480 --> 00:18:10,399
Speaker 1: figure even seven figure unique visitor tolls that most empty

289
00:18:10,560 --> 00:18:15,760
Speaker 1: calorie famous person obituary stories generate. So really, it's kind

290
00:18:15,760 --> 00:18:18,639
Speaker 1: of an absurd criticism to say we leaned into those

291
00:18:18,680 --> 00:18:23,280
Speaker 1: stories intentionally to drive up those numbers, because they didn't

292
00:18:23,280 --> 00:18:25,720
Speaker 1: make that much of a difference.

293
00:18:26,200 --> 00:18:28,520
Speaker 2: When we return more.

294
00:18:28,200 --> 00:18:32,359
Speaker 1: On my rationale in handling the Sony Hack and some

295
00:18:32,520 --> 00:18:39,399
Speaker 1: of those regrets, do you know seven to ten consumers

296
00:18:39,480 --> 00:18:43,800
Speaker 1: crave more authentic, culturally diverse stories in media. That's just

297
00:18:43,880 --> 00:18:47,560
Speaker 1: one of the insights Amazon Ads uncovered, and it's from

298
00:18:47,720 --> 00:18:51,919
Speaker 1: ads to Zeitgeist research. The study, which surveyed over twenty

299
00:18:52,000 --> 00:18:57,440
Speaker 1: one thousand respondents across twelve countries, identifies three key trends,

300
00:18:57,480 --> 00:19:01,639
Speaker 1: including the shift towards a more globally integrated culture, the

301
00:19:01,760 --> 00:19:06,440
Speaker 1: rise of interactive and collaborative content creation, and consumers desire

302
00:19:06,520 --> 00:19:11,840
Speaker 1: for more distinctive voices and original content. Visit Advertising dot

303
00:19:11,960 --> 00:19:17,119
Speaker 1: Amazon dot com slash culture Trends to view the full

304
00:19:17,160 --> 00:19:20,600
Speaker 1: report and learn how your brands can connect with audiences

305
00:19:20,920 --> 00:19:29,160
Speaker 1: by participating in today's cultural conversations. We are back where

306
00:19:29,200 --> 00:19:34,240
Speaker 1: I am talking about my rationale for handling the publishing

307
00:19:34,600 --> 00:19:37,440
Speaker 1: of the contents of the Sony hack. You know, in

308
00:19:37,480 --> 00:19:41,159
Speaker 1: the years since the Sony hack, it's been interesting to

309
00:19:41,280 --> 00:19:46,040
Speaker 1: see what has changed and what hasn't. For instance, I

310
00:19:46,080 --> 00:19:48,399
Speaker 1: think it would be it would surprise many to learn

311
00:19:48,600 --> 00:19:51,159
Speaker 1: because we haven't seen a fiasco at the level of

312
00:19:51,160 --> 00:19:54,920
Speaker 1: what Sony experienced in twenty fourteen, that hacks are still

313
00:19:54,960 --> 00:19:58,600
Speaker 1: a very big problem for the entertainment industry. Disney and

314
00:19:58,760 --> 00:20:02,880
Speaker 1: Roku were hit by cyber attacks just this year, and

315
00:20:02,960 --> 00:20:06,200
Speaker 1: in August, study by Unit forty two, the research armor

316
00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:10,040
Speaker 1: of cybersecurity company Palo Alto Networks, found that the media

317
00:20:10,040 --> 00:20:13,119
Speaker 1: and entertainment industry is more vulnerable than just about any

318
00:20:13,200 --> 00:20:17,000
Speaker 1: industry out there, as determined by the highest monthly growth

319
00:20:17,040 --> 00:20:20,080
Speaker 1: in what's known as attax surface, the term for the

320
00:20:20,080 --> 00:20:22,959
Speaker 1: total number of points within a software environment that are

321
00:20:23,040 --> 00:20:26,280
Speaker 1: vulnerable to a cyber attack. Who knows, We could see

322
00:20:26,320 --> 00:20:29,600
Speaker 1: another Sony at any time if you think about it.

323
00:20:30,560 --> 00:20:34,600
Speaker 1: But what has changed is how high profile hacks have

324
00:20:34,840 --> 00:20:39,000
Speaker 1: played out in the press. Think about just two years

325
00:20:39,160 --> 00:20:43,280
Speaker 1: after the Sony hack. For instance, Russia hacked the Democratic

326
00:20:43,359 --> 00:20:48,199
Speaker 1: National Campaign sorry Democratic National Committee and turned over Hillary

327
00:20:48,240 --> 00:20:52,200
Speaker 1: Clinton's emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn steadily fed the

328
00:20:52,240 --> 00:20:56,040
Speaker 1: press for months leading up to the presidential election. Many

329
00:20:56,080 --> 00:20:59,200
Speaker 1: experts in retrospect believe that could have been a huge

330
00:20:59,280 --> 00:21:03,960
Speaker 1: reason why she surprisingly lost to Donald Trump eight years later.

331
00:21:04,119 --> 00:21:08,320
Speaker 1: Earlier this year, note that the media behaved quite differently

332
00:21:08,400 --> 00:21:12,840
Speaker 1: when Iran hacked the Trump campaign, and some prominent newsrooms

333
00:21:12,840 --> 00:21:16,879
Speaker 1: were approached with materials from Vice President j d Vance's dossier.

334
00:21:17,720 --> 00:21:21,320
Speaker 1: This time around, the reflexive urge to publish was stifled.

335
00:21:21,840 --> 00:21:24,560
Speaker 1: There was much talk about not doing the bidding of

336
00:21:24,600 --> 00:21:28,199
Speaker 1: overseas entities, not acting in the best entrance of the

337
00:21:28,320 --> 00:21:31,159
Speaker 1: US of A. It was a far cry from the

338
00:21:31,200 --> 00:21:34,520
Speaker 1: sensibility that had been drummed into my journalistic noggin since

339
00:21:34,560 --> 00:21:37,159
Speaker 1: I was in college, which has been that the media

340
00:21:37,280 --> 00:21:40,640
Speaker 1: is its own entity, not American or anything else, a

341
00:21:40,680 --> 00:21:44,000
Speaker 1: third party observer that must be so steadfast in its

342
00:21:44,080 --> 00:21:47,160
Speaker 1: neutrality that it has no allegiance to anything but its

343
00:21:47,200 --> 00:21:50,560
Speaker 1: own aggressive pursuit of truth. To a larger degree than

344
00:21:50,600 --> 00:21:53,439
Speaker 1: you might realize, there's some hair splitting that comes with

345
00:21:53,480 --> 00:21:56,359
Speaker 1: the territory here that makes tearing your hair out about

346
00:21:56,359 --> 00:21:58,640
Speaker 1: the ethics of what to do here a little bit

347
00:21:58,800 --> 00:22:03,200
Speaker 1: too precious. For instance, I don't know if there's that

348
00:22:03,280 --> 00:22:06,680
Speaker 1: material difference between publishing the contents of the email from

349
00:22:06,720 --> 00:22:11,120
Speaker 1: the hack and say, aggregating or describing the reporting elsewhere

350
00:22:11,160 --> 00:22:15,080
Speaker 1: of other publications who do publish those contents. And yet

351
00:22:15,119 --> 00:22:17,200
Speaker 1: no less than the editor of The New York Times

352
00:22:17,280 --> 00:22:21,200
Speaker 1: during that time did draw distinction, saying he would only

353
00:22:21,240 --> 00:22:25,600
Speaker 1: cover newsworthy information surfaced by other outlets and not dig

354
00:22:25,680 --> 00:22:29,040
Speaker 1: through the files itself, which gets nothing but a total

355
00:22:29,119 --> 00:22:32,040
Speaker 1: eye roll for me. And yet I'd say that's at

356
00:22:32,119 --> 00:22:35,000
Speaker 1: least a better solution than not reporting on the contents

357
00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:37,239
Speaker 1: of the email at all, which to me feels like

358
00:22:37,440 --> 00:22:41,240
Speaker 1: doing the worst possible thing a publication can do, which

359
00:22:41,280 --> 00:22:44,600
Speaker 1: is to ignore reality. If something is in the news

360
00:22:44,600 --> 00:22:47,560
Speaker 1: cycle for good or for bad, once it's there. It's

361
00:22:47,560 --> 00:22:50,440
Speaker 1: not like looking away from something makes it go away,

362
00:22:50,920 --> 00:22:54,680
Speaker 1: So those purests, to me are even worse. The hair

363
00:22:54,720 --> 00:22:57,600
Speaker 1: splitting becomes all the more ridiculous when you consider what

364
00:22:57,760 --> 00:23:01,000
Speaker 1: was true then and more so now, which is that

365
00:23:01,080 --> 00:23:03,800
Speaker 1: when you really think about it, the whole notion of

366
00:23:03,840 --> 00:23:07,680
Speaker 1: the press in these hacking situations is really like an

367
00:23:07,800 --> 00:23:12,280
Speaker 1: unnecessary middleman. I mean, it's not like the hackers need

368
00:23:12,320 --> 00:23:16,199
Speaker 1: the media's websites or the printing presses in order to

369
00:23:16,320 --> 00:23:20,520
Speaker 1: display their stolen information to the public. The Internet is,

370
00:23:20,600 --> 00:23:24,800
Speaker 1: after all, one big, open publishing platform, and together with

371
00:23:24,880 --> 00:23:29,280
Speaker 1: social media, there's no intermediary required to direct the world's

372
00:23:29,280 --> 00:23:32,359
Speaker 1: attention to something that will be of interest to them.

373
00:23:32,680 --> 00:23:36,840
Speaker 1: Getting media involvement is like having validation for the materials

374
00:23:36,840 --> 00:23:41,000
Speaker 1: in question, a reputable tastemaker who can co sign for

375
00:23:41,040 --> 00:23:45,600
Speaker 1: its importance, but isn't really essential to the equation, certainly

376
00:23:45,640 --> 00:23:48,520
Speaker 1: not nowadays, when the establishing media almost seems like it

377
00:23:48,800 --> 00:23:53,280
Speaker 1: be a detraction, which speaks to the utter futility of

378
00:23:53,400 --> 00:23:58,560
Speaker 1: choosing not to have published the emails. Back then, principle,

379
00:23:58,640 --> 00:24:01,679
Speaker 1: the stand as some might have seen it, variety would have,

380
00:24:01,720 --> 00:24:05,080
Speaker 1: no doubt been part of a very quiet and small minority.

381
00:24:05,800 --> 00:24:08,480
Speaker 1: Had I any indication that we were influential enough to

382
00:24:08,520 --> 00:24:11,480
Speaker 1: have set a standard, Otherwise, perhaps I would have felt differently.

383
00:24:12,359 --> 00:24:16,240
Speaker 1: If anything, to be completely candid, it would have fueled

384
00:24:16,240 --> 00:24:19,239
Speaker 1: the reputation my publication had earned over the years of

385
00:24:19,280 --> 00:24:25,639
Speaker 1: being an industry lapdog, which I was not about to rekindle. Nevertheless,

386
00:24:26,240 --> 00:24:29,199
Speaker 1: I'll confess to feeling a sense of regret to not

387
00:24:29,359 --> 00:24:32,480
Speaker 1: having just stood out as the lonely minority back then

388
00:24:32,560 --> 00:24:36,160
Speaker 1: and sat out the feeding frenzy over those emails. Do

389
00:24:36,240 --> 00:24:38,040
Speaker 1: I think it would have influenced anyone?

390
00:24:38,800 --> 00:24:38,879
Speaker 3: No?

391
00:24:39,720 --> 00:24:42,080
Speaker 1: Do I think it would have even been noticed to

392
00:24:42,119 --> 00:24:44,280
Speaker 1: the point where it would have engendered some goodwill in

393
00:24:44,320 --> 00:24:48,760
Speaker 1: the industry. Maybe a little, But the skeptic in me

394
00:24:48,840 --> 00:24:52,120
Speaker 1: says we would have been just been carelessly tarred by

395
00:24:52,119 --> 00:24:54,680
Speaker 1: the same brush as the rest of the media, which

396
00:24:54,720 --> 00:24:58,200
Speaker 1: would have made the move feudile. But with a little

397
00:24:58,240 --> 00:25:01,040
Speaker 1: more age and wisdom, I do wish I was a

398
00:25:01,040 --> 00:25:05,800
Speaker 1: little less cynical then and just experimented with well not

399
00:25:06,119 --> 00:25:10,520
Speaker 1: being a cynic. I didn't have that courage then. Maybe

400
00:25:10,600 --> 00:25:14,920
Speaker 1: were I in that position today, I still wouldn't. We'll

401
00:25:14,960 --> 00:25:18,040
Speaker 1: never know, nor would I want to go through something

402
00:25:18,119 --> 00:25:20,040
Speaker 1: like that again and find out.

403
00:25:23,560 --> 00:25:26,479
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening, be sure to leave us a review

404
00:25:26,640 --> 00:25:30,240
Speaker 3: at Apple Podcasts or Amazon Music. We love to hear

405
00:25:30,280 --> 00:25:33,400
Speaker 3: from listeners. Please go to Variety dot com and sign

406
00:25:33,520 --> 00:25:37,480
Speaker 3: up for the free weekly Strictly Business newsletter, and don't

407
00:25:37,520 --> 00:25:41,040
Speaker 3: forget to tune in next week for another episode of

408
00:25:41,119 --> 00:25:42,480
Speaker 3: Strictly Business.

409
00:25:49,840 --> 00:25:53,480
Speaker 1: Do you know seven to ten consumers crave more authentic,

410
00:25:53,600 --> 00:25:56,959
Speaker 1: culturally diverse stories in media. That's just one of the

411
00:25:57,000 --> 00:26:02,359
Speaker 1: insights Amazon Ads uncovered, and it's from Ads to Zeitgeist Research.

412
00:26:02,800 --> 00:26:06,639
Speaker 1: The study, which surveyed over twenty one thousand respondents across

413
00:26:06,680 --> 00:26:11,840
Speaker 1: twelve countries, identifies three key trends, including the shift towards

414
00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:15,600
Speaker 1: a more globally integrated culture, the rise of interactive and

415
00:26:15,680 --> 00:26:20,680
Speaker 1: collaborative content creation, and consumers desire for more distinctive voices

416
00:26:20,720 --> 00:26:26,760
Speaker 1: and original content. Visit Advertising dot Amazon dot com slash

417
00:26:27,160 --> 00:26:31,240
Speaker 1: Culture Trends to view the full report and learn how

418
00:26:31,280 --> 00:26:35,480
Speaker 1: your brands can connect with audiences by participating in today's

419
00:26:35,560 --> 00:26:37,200
Speaker 1: cultural conversations