Larry D. Lauer

The hacking of Sony Corporation’s emails and their release to the public raises a number of critical issues related to the news media’s responsibility when it comes to reporting messages intended to be private. This is a complicated situation, but a very important one to analyze in this 24/7, highly competitive, often unedited, news media world.

Question #1. Do any of these emails have legitimate news value? For example, do some reveal improper relations with elected officials or criminal behavior?

Question #2. Do many of these emails only have “good headline” value because of the celebrities involved, or the sensational private comments of Sony insiders?

Question #3. Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe asked this critical question: “Does publishing most of these emails only result in the media doing the hackers’ bidding for them?”

Question #4. And when one or more media outlets decide to release these emails (and many will), will that mean all others will feel obligated to follow?

What makes this an even broader issue is the reality that making sensational statements of any kind these days can generate widespread headline coverage, and such headlines can multiply over and over. How often does this only amount to “doing the bidding” of the headline seeker?

This is not just a freedom-of-speech issue. It is also one of good judgment. No one questions the right to make these statements. But are they important news stories or merely audience  grabbing headlines?”

Now Sony has decided to delay or cancel the release of this movie. Was making the movie to begin with ever a wise idea? Have the hackers actually won the day?

Make no mistake. Sony’s rights are unquestioned. The news media’s rights are unquestioned. But what about their good judgment?

Should not the more principled news oriented journalists have taken more initiative to differentiate real news from what is merely good headline producing copy? Or if they cannot always make that distinction, should they at least ask the question more frequently?

In this irresponsible, lie infested, information cluttered, digital media world, should not the distinction between our “rights” and our “responsibility for exercising good judgment” become a matter for widespread public discussion? And should not the most responsible and principled journalists take the initiative to facilitate that discussion?