WEBVTT - I Defended Publishing the Sony Hack Emails 10 Years Ago. Now I Regret It. 0:00:07.400 --> 0:00:10.719 Welcome to another episode of Strictly Business, the podcast in 0:00:10.760 --> 0:00:13.039 which we speak with some of the brightest minds working 0:00:13.119 --> 0:00:17.320 in the media business today. I'm Andrew Wallenstein with Variety. 0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:22.920 Exactly ten years ago today, I published a commentary defending 0:00:22.960 --> 0:00:27.000 the decision to publish the contents of the Sony Hack 0:00:27.480 --> 0:00:31.040 in Variety, the publication where I then served as co 0:00:31.240 --> 0:00:34.320 editor in chief. And so in this episode of the 0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:38.320 Strictly Business podcast, with the distance of a decade's worth 0:00:38.320 --> 0:00:41.839 of perspective, I'm going to revisit a decision that, if 0:00:41.840 --> 0:00:46.479 I'm being candid, leaves me with some regret more in 0:00:46.600 --> 0:00:57.360 just a moment. Do you know seven to ten consumers 0:00:57.400 --> 0:01:01.760 crave more authentic, culturally diverse stories in media. That's just 0:01:01.800 --> 0:01:05.520 one of the insights Amazon Ads uncovered, and it's from 0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:09.880 Ads to Zeitgeist Research. The study, which surveyed over twenty 0:01:09.920 --> 0:01:15.360 one thousand respondents across twelve countries, identifies three key trends, 0:01:15.400 --> 0:01:19.560 including the shift towards a more globally integrated culture, the 0:01:19.680 --> 0:01:24.399 rise of interactive and collaborative content creation, and consumers desire 0:01:24.440 --> 0:01:29.760 for more distinctive voices and original content. Visit Advertising dot 0:01:29.920 --> 0:01:35.040 Amazon dot com, slash culture Trends. To view the full 0:01:35.120 --> 0:01:38.520 report and learn how your brands can connect with audiences 0:01:38.880 --> 0:01:47.280 by participating in today's cultural conversations. Welcome back to strictly business. 0:01:47.520 --> 0:01:50.720 I've encountered some sticky wickets over the course of my 0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:54.520 thirty plus year career, but I have to say that 0:01:54.640 --> 0:01:58.320 decision to publish the contents of the Sony hack, well, 0:01:58.840 --> 0:02:01.640 that may have been the stickiest. I'm not going to 0:02:01.680 --> 0:02:03.600 say if I had to do it all over again, 0:02:03.720 --> 0:02:06.400 I would do it differently because I understand why I 0:02:06.560 --> 0:02:10.120 did what I did then. But looking back on the 0:02:10.160 --> 0:02:13.320 hack in hindsight, I wish I'd taken a different tack, 0:02:13.919 --> 0:02:17.680 and today I'll explain why in detail. By now, the 0:02:17.720 --> 0:02:22.200 basics are a well known chapter in relatively recent Hollywood history. 0:02:22.840 --> 0:02:26.880 On November twenty fourth, twenty fourteen, a group of hackers 0:02:26.919 --> 0:02:30.359 based in North Korea, calling themselves Guardians of Peace, began 0:02:30.480 --> 0:02:34.440 what you might call a virtual terror campaign against Sony 0:02:34.480 --> 0:02:37.959 Pictures an objection to the movie The Interview and its 0:02:38.000 --> 0:02:42.240 depiction of their leader, Kim Jong un. Mister rapport, I'm 0:02:42.240 --> 0:02:44.320 an agent Lacy with Central Intelligence. 0:02:45.200 --> 0:02:47.360 You too, are going to be in a room alone 0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:47.760 with Kim. 0:02:48.000 --> 0:02:51.799 We got the interview. The CIA would love it if 0:02:51.800 --> 0:02:57.240 you could take him out, Take him out, like for drinks, 0:02:57.280 --> 0:02:58.640 like to dinner, out of the town. 0:02:59.000 --> 0:03:01.079 No, take him out. 0:03:01.360 --> 0:03:03.400 Do you want us to kill the leader of North Korea? 0:03:03.560 --> 0:03:03.800 Yes. 0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:10.800 As part of that campaign, they stole and leaked mountains 0:03:10.800 --> 0:03:15.640 of private information of all sorts from Sony, including highly 0:03:15.840 --> 0:03:21.519 sensitive emails from its executives concerning their business. Variety was 0:03:21.560 --> 0:03:24.800 one of many press outlets around the world that published 0:03:24.800 --> 0:03:28.160 some of the information that emerged from emails and other 0:03:28.280 --> 0:03:30.120 materials unearthed by the hack. 0:03:31.040 --> 0:03:31.680 Well, I was not. 0:03:31.680 --> 0:03:35.000 Alone in making that decision. It was a controversial one. 0:03:35.160 --> 0:03:37.760 When I think a lot about to this day, I'd 0:03:37.760 --> 0:03:40.280 say it's even fair to say it has haunted me 0:03:40.360 --> 0:03:44.680 these years. I can remember representatives of the studio begging 0:03:44.800 --> 0:03:48.160 us not to publish, citing the damage being done to 0:03:48.200 --> 0:03:52.800 their employees and business associates whose privacy was being invaded. 0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.920 I think they felt particularly betrayed that a publication like Variety, 0:03:57.480 --> 0:04:00.880 which has been such an integral institution and the entertainment 0:04:00.880 --> 0:04:04.960 industry for so long, would stoop so low. And though 0:04:05.000 --> 0:04:07.720 I felt I had solid logical ground on which I 0:04:07.760 --> 0:04:11.280 was able to make my decision to publish the Hacks disclosures. 0:04:12.040 --> 0:04:15.160 I admitted in the opening words of my article defending 0:04:15.200 --> 0:04:19.400 that decision that I did not feel good about it. Quote. 0:04:20.080 --> 0:04:23.440 The more sony pictures data keeps leaking, the more my 0:04:23.680 --> 0:04:27.120 moral compass spins like a weather van in a hurricane. 0:04:27.760 --> 0:04:30.360 What just a week ago seemed such a clear cut 0:04:30.480 --> 0:04:33.480 case of doing what my instincts have told me to 0:04:33.520 --> 0:04:36.599 do at every other moment of my career is now 0:04:36.640 --> 0:04:41.640 making me increasingly queasy. End quote. You know, I still 0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:45.719 recall that feeling, that bitterness in my gut that people 0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:48.799 get whenever they have to make any decision that doesn't 0:04:48.880 --> 0:04:52.440 feel right, even though you know it's not wrong. But 0:04:52.520 --> 0:04:54.840 here's the funny thing. When I look back ten years later, 0:04:55.480 --> 0:04:58.480 you know what, I don't remember the stories we stuck 0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:02.600 our neck out to publish that emerged from the hack. Really, 0:05:02.680 --> 0:05:05.440 it occurred to me recently that I couldn't remember a 0:05:05.560 --> 0:05:08.840 single revelation from that time, which struck me as odd, 0:05:08.880 --> 0:05:12.240 because why take a principled stand to publish something that 0:05:12.360 --> 0:05:16.719 wasn't even memorable enough to stick in my brain? Years later, 0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:21.040 A fresh doubt started to gnaught me how principled a decision. 0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:23.599 Could this have been if I couldn't even remember what 0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:27.160 I was taking a stand for. Of course, a little 0:05:27.200 --> 0:05:31.120 googling brought it all flooding back, a random hodgepodge of 0:05:31.240 --> 0:05:36.719 fairly gossipy tidbits, sony executive and a movie producer making crude, 0:05:36.880 --> 0:05:41.960 racist jokes about then President Obama, another one calling Angelina 0:05:42.080 --> 0:05:48.480 Jolie a quote minimally talented, spoiled brat head quote, budget 0:05:48.480 --> 0:05:54.760 and salary figures from the movie the interview Celebrity Hotel aliases, Yeah, no, wonder, 0:05:54.760 --> 0:05:57.320 I couldn't remember this stuff right, But I'll tell you 0:05:57.440 --> 0:06:01.280 what I do remember, quite vividly from that a decade ago, 0:06:01.760 --> 0:06:05.599 the pointed criticism that came for journalist decision makers like 0:06:05.680 --> 0:06:10.480 myself from some pretty prominent celebrities. Not just any celebrities, 0:06:10.520 --> 0:06:14.480 mind you, but a group of actors, writers, and directors 0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:16.840 that if I had made a top ten list of 0:06:16.880 --> 0:06:20.599 the Hollywood luminaries I admired most they'd all be on 0:06:20.640 --> 0:06:25.480 that list. So that felt good. We're talking Brad Pitt, 0:06:25.640 --> 0:06:28.840 Judd Apatow. But let's start with the one that cut 0:06:28.880 --> 0:06:31.680 deeper than them all, because it was the only one 0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:36.520 that was targeted directly at me. The great screenwriter Aaron 0:06:36.600 --> 0:06:40.880 Sorkin not only wrote an op ed excoriating those like 0:06:40.920 --> 0:06:44.159 myself who published the contents of the Sony Hack, but 0:06:44.240 --> 0:06:47.000 in his piece singled me out and even linked to 0:06:47.040 --> 0:06:49.760 my commentary, which I thought was really cool at the time. 0:06:50.480 --> 0:06:52.680 But let's get to the not cool part, which is 0:06:52.680 --> 0:06:57.440 where he mercilessly mocked me, and I quote the co 0:06:57.640 --> 0:07:00.880 editor in chief of Variety tells us he decided that 0:07:00.920 --> 0:07:05.480 the leaks were to use his word newsworthy. I'm dying 0:07:05.480 --> 0:07:07.960 to ask him what part of the studio's post production 0:07:08.120 --> 0:07:13.000 notes on Cameron Crowe's new project is newsworthy? So newsworthy 0:07:13.000 --> 0:07:15.640 that it's worth carrying out the wishes of people who've 0:07:15.640 --> 0:07:18.320 said they're going to murder families and who have so 0:07:18.480 --> 0:07:22.960 far done everything they threatened to do. Newsworthy. As the 0:07:23.040 --> 0:07:26.520 character Innigo Montoya said in The Princess Bride, I do 0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:30.080 not think it means what you think it means. End quote, 0:07:30.600 --> 0:07:33.720 not contend to simply let his feelings be known. In 0:07:33.800 --> 0:07:38.240 a New York Times op ed, Sorkin actually went on 0:07:38.360 --> 0:07:42.480 The Today Show to pound the point home. Here's a clip. 0:07:42.800 --> 0:07:46.240 Oscar winning screenwriter and playwright Aaron Sorkin. He's taking aim 0:07:46.280 --> 0:07:48.200 at the media and a New York Times op ed 0:07:48.280 --> 0:07:51.680 piece for publishing some of the emails and stolen information 0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:54.440 from that massive cyber attack against Sony Pictures. Erind's with 0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:55.040 us this morning. 0:07:55.040 --> 0:07:56.040 Good morning, good morning. 0:07:56.240 --> 0:07:57.840 Quote a little bit from your op ed, you say 0:07:57.880 --> 0:08:00.760 that the media has basically been quote more treason is 0:08:01.120 --> 0:08:04.240 and spectacularly dishonorable in publishing this. You do have a 0:08:04.280 --> 0:08:06.480 way with words, will grant you that? Is it your 0:08:06.520 --> 0:08:09.520 belief that the press should not have published this at all? 0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:13.640 Yes, listen, I think that I talk about this in 0:08:13.680 --> 0:08:17.400 the op ed. There are certainly times when the press 0:08:17.440 --> 0:08:20.320 should has an obligation to publish things that we're stolen. 0:08:20.680 --> 0:08:22.880 I talk about the Pentagon papers, but you don't even 0:08:22.960 --> 0:08:26.680 have to use that as as your standard. Loosen the 0:08:26.720 --> 0:08:29.600 standards a little bit. Is there anything in these emails 0:08:29.640 --> 0:08:32.360 at all that's in the public interest that points to 0:08:32.480 --> 0:08:38.280 wrongdoing at the company that helps anyone in any way? 0:08:38.320 --> 0:08:40.960 There isn't. There's just gossip there. You can loosen the 0:08:40.960 --> 0:08:43.480 standards even more, but ultimately you have to dispense with 0:08:43.559 --> 0:08:47.240 standards entirely in order to be okay with publishing these emails. 0:08:47.280 --> 0:08:50.280 Wow, So this is a good place to begin walking 0:08:50.320 --> 0:08:55.079 through the reasoning behind my decision to publish. What Sorkin 0:08:55.200 --> 0:08:57.920 is essentially saying here is that it's not as if 0:08:57.960 --> 0:09:01.600 the press shouldn't publish stolen in information of any kind 0:09:01.679 --> 0:09:05.600 under any circumstances. But he is setting the bar above 0:09:05.760 --> 0:09:10.240 mere gossip and at what he calls wrongdoing, which we 0:09:10.320 --> 0:09:14.679 can presume means examples of corruption or malfeasance, and not 0:09:14.760 --> 0:09:18.720 just filmmakers making racist jokes about the president. And I 0:09:18.760 --> 0:09:22.360 invoke that infamous example when I draw the distinction to 0:09:22.400 --> 0:09:25.040 make a point, by the way, which is to say, 0:09:25.520 --> 0:09:27.679 where does one draw the line at defining what exactly 0:09:27.720 --> 0:09:32.960 wrongdoing is? But let's not get caught up there. Regardless, 0:09:33.120 --> 0:09:37.520 for Sorkin, wrongdoing sets the bar for what he refers 0:09:37.559 --> 0:09:40.959 to as the public interest. And of course there's the 0:09:41.000 --> 0:09:43.040 other phrase he has fun mocking me with in his 0:09:43.120 --> 0:09:48.680 op ed Newsworthy Look in all candor. These phrases are 0:09:48.840 --> 0:09:52.719 so amorphous as to have become over the years meaningless. 0:09:53.320 --> 0:09:57.400 Any clever editor can bend them to accommodate the raison 0:09:57.520 --> 0:10:01.120 to etra of all but the most vacuous pace of journalism. 0:10:01.360 --> 0:10:04.160 During the Sony hack, I read many a justification from 0:10:04.240 --> 0:10:07.520 others in the press about how publishing the hacked emails 0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:10.319 was okay because it held up a mirror to how 0:10:10.360 --> 0:10:13.719 the business of culture truly operates. I thought it was 0:10:13.840 --> 0:10:17.560 hogwash then, and I think it's hogwash now. Not that 0:10:17.600 --> 0:10:20.240 it doesn't hold up a mirror. It does, but that 0:10:20.280 --> 0:10:24.520 the mirror alone doesn't justify the invasion of privacy. But 0:10:24.920 --> 0:10:27.880 I also didn't believe there has to be something truly 0:10:28.040 --> 0:10:32.880 revelatory on the level of, say, wrongdoing, as Sorkin might argue, 0:10:33.480 --> 0:10:36.200 in order to rise to the level of being worthy 0:10:36.240 --> 0:10:39.600 of publishing. Now, to explain what I mean by that, 0:10:39.760 --> 0:10:42.559 I want to explain what it is exactly I've done 0:10:42.640 --> 0:10:46.240 for a living for the past twenty years, because it's 0:10:46.280 --> 0:10:49.320 at the core of my argument. You know, people who 0:10:49.400 --> 0:10:51.760 aren't in my business ask me from time to time 0:10:52.240 --> 0:10:55.880 where does news come from? And I know there's a 0:10:55.920 --> 0:10:58.600 certain kind of naivete that comes with the question. It 0:10:58.640 --> 0:11:02.199 almost sounds like they're asking if babies are delivered by storks. 0:11:02.800 --> 0:11:05.480 But there is some nuance to the answer. So let 0:11:05.520 --> 0:11:09.040 me lay out the answer for a bit here. I 0:11:09.160 --> 0:11:12.720 like to think of news coming in four different channels. First, 0:11:12.880 --> 0:11:17.360 there's what's on the record, through so called official channels. 0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:21.319 Reporters get press releases, and there are sometimes press conferences, 0:11:21.360 --> 0:11:25.000 press calls, presentations, events, all these dog and pony shows 0:11:25.480 --> 0:11:29.240 where there is a controlled flow of informations from companies 0:11:29.280 --> 0:11:31.080 to the press, where they tell us what they'd like 0:11:31.160 --> 0:11:34.560 us to know about their companies. But what separates the 0:11:34.559 --> 0:11:37.160 best publications from the run of the mill publications is 0:11:37.200 --> 0:11:41.880 the information they get from others, shall we say, unofficial channels. 0:11:42.360 --> 0:11:46.120 For instance, there is a second channel, let's say, the 0:11:46.120 --> 0:11:50.559 information that gets distributed off the record that not everyone gets. 0:11:50.880 --> 0:11:53.840 This is the information that's often marked exclusive, that gives 0:11:53.840 --> 0:11:58.280 you reason to read one publication and not another. Now, 0:11:58.320 --> 0:12:00.480 just to confuse you a little bit, Often times the 0:12:00.559 --> 0:12:03.840 off the record information comes from the same people that 0:12:03.960 --> 0:12:06.960 gives you the on the record information, they just don't 0:12:06.960 --> 0:12:10.839 identify themselves. That's the third channel of news, what i'd 0:12:10.920 --> 0:12:15.160 call a leak. They're deliberately giving you information, but not 0:12:15.400 --> 0:12:19.280 through the official channels they typically give to everyone for 0:12:19.360 --> 0:12:23.920 one strategic reason or another. But lastly, and most importantly, 0:12:23.960 --> 0:12:27.320 there's a fourth channel where news is sourced, where the 0:12:27.440 --> 0:12:32.000 reporter secures information they're not supposed to get. It might 0:12:32.040 --> 0:12:35.880 come from other people within the organization, or it might 0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:39.560 come from the ecosystem of companies that operate around the 0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:43.680 organization that might be divulging the information for all sorts 0:12:43.720 --> 0:12:47.120 of reasons. But the very best reporters are those that 0:12:47.160 --> 0:12:50.840 can traffic in that information. Now, on the entertainment beat, 0:12:51.080 --> 0:12:53.080 these are the people who get the scoop on say, 0:12:53.320 --> 0:12:56.280 the big movie coming together before the studio is ready 0:12:56.320 --> 0:13:00.240 to announce it. Sometimes it gets even more sophisticated than that. 0:13:00.280 --> 0:13:03.280 We could break news of a multi billion dollar m 0:13:03.320 --> 0:13:06.559 and a deal before it's supposed to be announced. They 0:13:06.600 --> 0:13:09.000 even get the details of what the CEOs may have 0:13:09.040 --> 0:13:11.840 said to each other in a private conversation to make 0:13:11.960 --> 0:13:15.520 said deal happen. I myself know of a few stories 0:13:15.520 --> 0:13:20.760 where financial documents were anonymously snail mailed to me, referring 0:13:20.800 --> 0:13:24.360 to all sorts of entertainment industry dealings, in one instance, 0:13:24.440 --> 0:13:28.120 a fairly major deal where I may have no idea 0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:31.800 of how the info was obtained, but once I confirmed it, 0:13:32.280 --> 0:13:35.120 I ran with it. Now, why am I telling you 0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:38.480 all this, because when you think about the information that 0:13:38.559 --> 0:13:41.640 came about and the Sony hack. It's because it really 0:13:41.760 --> 0:13:45.000 wasn't all that different than the Fourth Channel information I 0:13:45.160 --> 0:13:49.679 traffic in almost every day. So when I hear the 0:13:49.720 --> 0:13:53.160 Aaron Sorkins of the world push back against it, what 0:13:53.200 --> 0:13:56.200 I'm hearing, to some extent is them really wishing what 0:13:56.320 --> 0:13:59.480 the Hollywood establishment more or less fought with me about 0:13:59.600 --> 0:14:02.520 every day back when I was co editor in chief, 0:14:03.200 --> 0:14:06.720 controlling the flow of information that gets into the public 0:14:07.200 --> 0:14:11.520 on their terms. Now I know what you're thinking. The 0:14:11.559 --> 0:14:14.280 background explanation I just gave is all well and good, 0:14:14.320 --> 0:14:19.120 but it's irrelevant because the Sony hack isn't your ordinary circumstances. 0:14:19.440 --> 0:14:22.560 This wasn't some I don't know mogul snitching to you 0:14:22.640 --> 0:14:26.360 about a rival's extramarital affair with some startlet he cast 0:14:26.400 --> 0:14:30.600 in his next movie. This information came from a terrorist 0:14:30.720 --> 0:14:34.359 threatening people's lives, and I was aiding and abetting them. 0:14:34.720 --> 0:14:38.160 As Seth Rogan, star of the interview, said at the time, 0:14:38.440 --> 0:14:43.400 quote everyone is doing exactly what these criminals want. It's 0:14:43.440 --> 0:14:49.160 stolen information that media outlets are directly profiting from. End quote. 0:14:49.640 --> 0:14:54.240 Look I get that. I acknowledged then that the hackers 0:14:54.240 --> 0:14:58.840 were essentially playing the press as winning pawns. I likened 0:14:58.880 --> 0:15:02.800 us as zombies, finelessly chasing any available information no matter what. 0:15:03.240 --> 0:15:06.480 But you also have to understand the slippery slope the 0:15:06.560 --> 0:15:11.640 situation had the press sliding down into. As I just explained, 0:15:12.080 --> 0:15:15.720 my job is getting information about the business of entertainment, 0:15:16.000 --> 0:15:20.040 both important and not so important all the time. So 0:15:20.200 --> 0:15:23.400 this time the information came in bulk instead of the 0:15:23.520 --> 0:15:26.720 usual tidbits. Now, is there some kind of tonnage level 0:15:26.760 --> 0:15:30.680 where I should cut off the acceptable amounts of unauthorized 0:15:30.720 --> 0:15:34.360 information I'm allowed to accept? And more to the point, 0:15:35.280 --> 0:15:38.240 as for how savory a character I am allowed to 0:15:38.400 --> 0:15:42.440 accept the information from? Where exactly do I draw the 0:15:42.480 --> 0:15:47.040 line between a North Korean hacker? Hacker? I should say, 0:15:47.320 --> 0:15:52.440 and for example, your typical Hollywood agent isn't. The simplest solution, 0:15:53.160 --> 0:15:57.920 given the impossibility of drawing clear lines, is to not 0:15:58.400 --> 0:16:01.720 draw lines at all. I also think you need to 0:16:01.760 --> 0:16:05.280 take into account the time in which this hack took place. 0:16:06.120 --> 0:16:08.880 Twenty fourteen was just a few years removed from the 0:16:09.000 --> 0:16:14.280 dramas of Edward Snowden and years before that WikiLeaks. The 0:16:14.400 --> 0:16:17.520 lessons many learned from their stories was that the ends 0:16:17.720 --> 0:16:22.040 justified the means when it came to stolen information. Never 0:16:22.040 --> 0:16:24.640 mind that Sony is not a government and there didn't 0:16:24.680 --> 0:16:27.640 seem to be any corporate wrongdoing on that company to 0:16:27.720 --> 0:16:31.400 report on. What's actually striking to me to reflect on 0:16:31.520 --> 0:16:34.000 now is how the optics would have been so much 0:16:34.040 --> 0:16:37.560 different in this situation if the hacked company in question 0:16:38.120 --> 0:16:41.280 was one of the bigger tech companies then, like Meta 0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:46.200 or Amazon or Apple. Something tells me, given the regulatory 0:16:46.240 --> 0:16:49.760 scrutiny they've come under for years, it would have changed 0:16:49.800 --> 0:16:54.720 the equation dramatically. And it's ironic actually to be talking 0:16:54.760 --> 0:16:57.560 about a time when the US government was concerned about 0:16:57.600 --> 0:17:02.320 protecting Sony, considering here we are ten years later, and 0:17:02.360 --> 0:17:05.800 there was actually a brief possibility earlier this year that 0:17:05.880 --> 0:17:08.879 Sony could have joined the private e equity group Apollo 0:17:09.040 --> 0:17:13.359 Global Management and pursuing the acquisition of Paramount Global, a 0:17:13.520 --> 0:17:17.040 move that analysts expected would have drawn regulatory scrutiny of 0:17:17.080 --> 0:17:20.560 Sony because they are a foreign company that already owns 0:17:20.560 --> 0:17:24.240 a film and TV studio. It's funny how the tables 0:17:24.320 --> 0:17:28.359 turned depending on the circumstances, you know. I also want 0:17:28.400 --> 0:17:31.520 to address there was criticism that I and many others 0:17:31.560 --> 0:17:35.520 in the media got back then, was that we published 0:17:35.520 --> 0:17:40.600 the Sony Hack content for clicks in all candor, well, 0:17:40.640 --> 0:17:43.360 I'm not going to deny that the web traffic value 0:17:43.400 --> 0:17:46.879 of gossipy articles never entered my mind at that time. 0:17:47.640 --> 0:17:52.119 Anyone who knows anything of an entertainmenttainment about entertainment news 0:17:52.160 --> 0:17:55.800 can tell you that this kind of business minded editorial 0:17:55.880 --> 0:17:59.840 content from the Sony Hack is nowhere near the most 0:18:00.119 --> 0:18:04.400 call it click rich stories that generate the high six 0:18:04.480 --> 0:18:10.399 figure even seven figure unique visitor tolls that most empty 0:18:10.560 --> 0:18:15.760 calorie famous person obituary stories generate. So really, it's kind 0:18:15.760 --> 0:18:18.639 of an absurd criticism to say we leaned into those 0:18:18.680 --> 0:18:23.280 stories intentionally to drive up those numbers, because they didn't 0:18:23.280 --> 0:18:25.720 make that much of a difference. 0:18:26.200 --> 0:18:28.520 When we return more. 0:18:28.200 --> 0:18:32.359 On my rationale in handling the Sony Hack and some 0:18:32.520 --> 0:18:39.399 of those regrets, do you know seven to ten consumers 0:18:39.480 --> 0:18:43.800 crave more authentic, culturally diverse stories in media. That's just 0:18:43.880 --> 0:18:47.560 one of the insights Amazon Ads uncovered, and it's from 0:18:47.720 --> 0:18:51.919 ads to Zeitgeist research. The study, which surveyed over twenty 0:18:52.000 --> 0:18:57.440 one thousand respondents across twelve countries, identifies three key trends, 0:18:57.480 --> 0:19:01.639 including the shift towards a more globally integrated culture, the 0:19:01.760 --> 0:19:06.440 rise of interactive and collaborative content creation, and consumers desire 0:19:06.520 --> 0:19:11.840 for more distinctive voices and original content. Visit Advertising dot 0:19:11.960 --> 0:19:17.119 Amazon dot com slash culture Trends to view the full 0:19:17.160 --> 0:19:20.600 report and learn how your brands can connect with audiences 0:19:20.920 --> 0:19:29.160 by participating in today's cultural conversations. We are back where 0:19:29.200 --> 0:19:34.240 I am talking about my rationale for handling the publishing 0:19:34.600 --> 0:19:37.440 of the contents of the Sony hack. You know, in 0:19:37.480 --> 0:19:41.159 the years since the Sony hack, it's been interesting to 0:19:41.280 --> 0:19:46.040 see what has changed and what hasn't. For instance, I 0:19:46.080 --> 0:19:48.399 think it would be it would surprise many to learn 0:19:48.600 --> 0:19:51.159 because we haven't seen a fiasco at the level of 0:19:51.160 --> 0:19:54.920 what Sony experienced in twenty fourteen, that hacks are still 0:19:54.960 --> 0:19:58.600 a very big problem for the entertainment industry. Disney and 0:19:58.760 --> 0:20:02.880 Roku were hit by cyber attacks just this year, and 0:20:02.960 --> 0:20:06.200 in August, study by Unit forty two, the research armor 0:20:06.240 --> 0:20:10.040 of cybersecurity company Palo Alto Networks, found that the media 0:20:10.040 --> 0:20:13.119 and entertainment industry is more vulnerable than just about any 0:20:13.200 --> 0:20:17.000 industry out there, as determined by the highest monthly growth 0:20:17.040 --> 0:20:20.080 in what's known as attax surface, the term for the 0:20:20.080 --> 0:20:22.959 total number of points within a software environment that are 0:20:23.040 --> 0:20:26.280 vulnerable to a cyber attack. Who knows, We could see 0:20:26.320 --> 0:20:29.600 another Sony at any time if you think about it. 0:20:30.560 --> 0:20:34.600 But what has changed is how high profile hacks have 0:20:34.840 --> 0:20:39.000 played out in the press. Think about just two years 0:20:39.160 --> 0:20:43.280 after the Sony hack. For instance, Russia hacked the Democratic 0:20:43.359 --> 0:20:48.199 National Campaign sorry Democratic National Committee and turned over Hillary 0:20:48.240 --> 0:20:52.200 Clinton's emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn steadily fed the 0:20:52.240 --> 0:20:56.040 press for months leading up to the presidential election. Many 0:20:56.080 --> 0:20:59.200 experts in retrospect believe that could have been a huge 0:20:59.280 --> 0:21:03.960 reason why she surprisingly lost to Donald Trump eight years later. 0:21:04.119 --> 0:21:08.320 Earlier this year, note that the media behaved quite differently 0:21:08.400 --> 0:21:12.840 when Iran hacked the Trump campaign, and some prominent newsrooms 0:21:12.840 --> 0:21:16.879 were approached with materials from Vice President j d Vance's dossier. 0:21:17.720 --> 0:21:21.320 This time around, the reflexive urge to publish was stifled. 0:21:21.840 --> 0:21:24.560 There was much talk about not doing the bidding of 0:21:24.600 --> 0:21:28.199 overseas entities, not acting in the best entrance of the 0:21:28.320 --> 0:21:31.159 US of A. It was a far cry from the 0:21:31.200 --> 0:21:34.520 sensibility that had been drummed into my journalistic noggin since 0:21:34.560 --> 0:21:37.159 I was in college, which has been that the media 0:21:37.280 --> 0:21:40.640 is its own entity, not American or anything else, a 0:21:40.680 --> 0:21:44.000 third party observer that must be so steadfast in its 0:21:44.080 --> 0:21:47.160 neutrality that it has no allegiance to anything but its 0:21:47.200 --> 0:21:50.560 own aggressive pursuit of truth. To a larger degree than 0:21:50.600 --> 0:21:53.439 you might realize, there's some hair splitting that comes with 0:21:53.480 --> 0:21:56.359 the territory here that makes tearing your hair out about 0:21:56.359 --> 0:21:58.640 the ethics of what to do here a little bit 0:21:58.800 --> 0:22:03.200 too precious. For instance, I don't know if there's that 0:22:03.280 --> 0:22:06.680 material difference between publishing the contents of the email from 0:22:06.720 --> 0:22:11.120 the hack and say, aggregating or describing the reporting elsewhere 0:22:11.160 --> 0:22:15.080 of other publications who do publish those contents. And yet 0:22:15.119 --> 0:22:17.200 no less than the editor of The New York Times 0:22:17.280 --> 0:22:21.200 during that time did draw distinction, saying he would only 0:22:21.240 --> 0:22:25.600 cover newsworthy information surfaced by other outlets and not dig 0:22:25.680 --> 0:22:29.040 through the files itself, which gets nothing but a total 0:22:29.119 --> 0:22:32.040 eye roll for me. And yet I'd say that's at 0:22:32.119 --> 0:22:35.000 least a better solution than not reporting on the contents 0:22:35.000 --> 0:22:37.239 of the email at all, which to me feels like 0:22:37.440 --> 0:22:41.240 doing the worst possible thing a publication can do, which 0:22:41.280 --> 0:22:44.600 is to ignore reality. If something is in the news 0:22:44.600 --> 0:22:47.560 cycle for good or for bad, once it's there. It's 0:22:47.560 --> 0:22:50.440 not like looking away from something makes it go away, 0:22:50.920 --> 0:22:54.680 So those purests, to me are even worse. The hair 0:22:54.720 --> 0:22:57.600 splitting becomes all the more ridiculous when you consider what 0:22:57.760 --> 0:23:01.000 was true then and more so now, which is that 0:23:01.080 --> 0:23:03.800 when you really think about it, the whole notion of 0:23:03.840 --> 0:23:07.680 the press in these hacking situations is really like an 0:23:07.800 --> 0:23:12.280 unnecessary middleman. I mean, it's not like the hackers need 0:23:12.320 --> 0:23:16.199 the media's websites or the printing presses in order to 0:23:16.320 --> 0:23:20.520 display their stolen information to the public. The Internet is, 0:23:20.600 --> 0:23:24.800 after all, one big, open publishing platform, and together with 0:23:24.880 --> 0:23:29.280 social media, there's no intermediary required to direct the world's 0:23:29.280 --> 0:23:32.359 attention to something that will be of interest to them. 0:23:32.680 --> 0:23:36.840 Getting media involvement is like having validation for the materials 0:23:36.840 --> 0:23:41.000 in question, a reputable tastemaker who can co sign for 0:23:41.040 --> 0:23:45.600 its importance, but isn't really essential to the equation, certainly 0:23:45.640 --> 0:23:48.520 not nowadays, when the establishing media almost seems like it 0:23:48.800 --> 0:23:53.280 be a detraction, which speaks to the utter futility of 0:23:53.400 --> 0:23:58.560 choosing not to have published the emails. Back then, principle, 0:23:58.640 --> 0:24:01.679 the stand as some might have seen it, variety would have, 0:24:01.720 --> 0:24:05.080 no doubt been part of a very quiet and small minority. 0:24:05.800 --> 0:24:08.480 Had I any indication that we were influential enough to 0:24:08.520 --> 0:24:11.480 have set a standard, Otherwise, perhaps I would have felt differently. 0:24:12.359 --> 0:24:16.240 If anything, to be completely candid, it would have fueled 0:24:16.240 --> 0:24:19.239 the reputation my publication had earned over the years of 0:24:19.280 --> 0:24:25.639 being an industry lapdog, which I was not about to rekindle. Nevertheless, 0:24:26.240 --> 0:24:29.199 I'll confess to feeling a sense of regret to not 0:24:29.359 --> 0:24:32.480 having just stood out as the lonely minority back then 0:24:32.560 --> 0:24:36.160 and sat out the feeding frenzy over those emails. Do 0:24:36.240 --> 0:24:38.040 I think it would have influenced anyone? 0:24:38.800 --> 0:24:38.879 No? 0:24:39.720 --> 0:24:42.080 Do I think it would have even been noticed to 0:24:42.119 --> 0:24:44.280 the point where it would have engendered some goodwill in 0:24:44.320 --> 0:24:48.760 the industry. Maybe a little, But the skeptic in me 0:24:48.840 --> 0:24:52.120 says we would have been just been carelessly tarred by 0:24:52.119 --> 0:24:54.680 the same brush as the rest of the media, which 0:24:54.720 --> 0:24:58.200 would have made the move feudile. But with a little 0:24:58.240 --> 0:25:01.040 more age and wisdom, I do wish I was a 0:25:01.040 --> 0:25:05.800 little less cynical then and just experimented with well not 0:25:06.119 --> 0:25:10.520 being a cynic. I didn't have that courage then. Maybe 0:25:10.600 --> 0:25:14.920 were I in that position today, I still wouldn't. We'll 0:25:14.960 --> 0:25:18.040