Larry D. Lauer

In past posts I differentiated between “normal” and crisis times when it comes to making judgments about how leaders should respond. So was it wise for President Obama to say he wished that Sony would have consulted him before cancelling the film about the assassination of the North Korean President? What was the benefit of inserting himself in this way at this complex moment in time?

In addition to saying Sony should not have cancelled the opening of this movie on Christmas day because of our national belief in freedom of speech, Obama further added that he regarded the North Korean hacking as “vandalism” and not an act of terrorism.

Would it not have been better at this initial moment in the crisis to empathize with Sony’s difficult position and to avoid confusing a very uncertain situation? After all, Sony was responding to theater owners who were legitimately concerned about local crazies using the situation for their own purposes. And further more, maybe Sony was assessing their original “strategic” judgment about releasing this particular satire on Christmas day in a year when ISIS threats could very likely stimulate local sympathizers.

My judgment is that Obama’s critical remarks at this time merely insured more confusion, put Sony on the defensive, handed media pundits a field day, and stimulated angry responses from adversaries in congress about whether it was “vandalism” or terrorism.”

After empathizing with Sony at the initial time of crisis, and adding a firm commitment to find and punish the hackers, would it not have been better to wait a few days for Sony to decide when and how it would release the movie before saying any more? Then Obama could  “own” the moment, take the offensive, support Sony’s decision, and reiterate the nation’s  commitment to freedom of speech. This would also be the perfect time to define the concept of “satire” for the rest of the world, and to make a more careful statement about how the U.S. intends to respond.

It is true that during a crisis a leader needs to sound and look decisive. But in this particular case Obama also needed to avoid making matters more complicated, confusing and polarized.  Adding to the clutter as he did was not helpful.