April 7, 2009

Is Reviewing Leaks Immoral?

Courtesy 20th Century Fox.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Via Variety comes the news that Fox News entertainment columnist Roger Friedman was fired yesterday for reviewing a leaked version of the upcoming X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie (or, as I call it, Double the Wolverine, Double the Hotness) last Thursday. The internet leak drew attention for two reasons; one, because it was so far in advance of the film’s anticipated May 1 release date, and two, due to its quality, as it was apparently an early studio cut and not a “hand-held camera in a theater” style copy. Friedman’s review has since been removed, but it caused ire among hardcore fans as well as at Wolverine studio 20th Century Fox (a division, like Fox News, of everybody’s favorite media conglomerate News Corp.). In far less significant but oddly coincidental news, the morning show at my old alma mater LIVE 105 was fired last week and rumors are flying that it was due to their playing 30 seconds of a track from the upcoming Green Day album. Have media companies reached the breaking point with this gol-durned internet and its leaky tubes?
 

It’s a little creepy, because reviewing early leaks of albums has become standard practice at respectable blogs. In our defense, recent history has shown that album leaks are generally reliable and final versions of the album in question (although not always), unlike the Wolverine leak which was apparently an unfinished cut. Moreover, like I’ve complained about before, America is often a far-flung hinterland when it comes to new music from the rest of the world, with chart-topping albums from Sweden or Mali taking months or years to reach our shores. Even then, release dates are notoriously tenuous. More than anything, with early reviews so omnipresent in the blog-o-town, nobody wants to be left behind. But are we, and was Friedman, committing an art crime? And if so, how much control should the critic allow the media conglomerate who decides the release dates, and how can the critic respect artistic (and commercial) rights while also acknowledging, you know, reality? I’m just glad I didn’t download the Wolverine leak, but I refuse to watch that in anything but the highest possible definition. Ahem.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate