Is Reviewing Leaks Immoral?

Courtesy 20th Century Fox.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of 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.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend