In the oft-colliding worlds of journalism, technology and politics, a place where the rules of engagement constantly evolve, language still matters.
There is no overlap, in the Venn diagram of journalistic terms, between “leak” and “hack.” They are completely separate and distinct methods of revealing confidential information through the media.
The former is a logical (and often necessary) extension of the First Amendment; the latter is a potential violation of the Fourth Amendment when committed by the state, and a possible felony when perpetrated by an individual. Furthermore, a hack is divulging someone’s personal email: at best, a distasteful and disingenuous exercise; at worst, a criminal enterprise.
Any reporter who disagrees is free to publish their personal email’s login and username. Nobody wants their private and confidential correspondence exposed to the world – nor should it be.
The distinction is clear to those of us who have orchestrated strategic leaks over the years and are loath to hack for ethical, moral and legal reasons. Note to careful readers – it’s all three reasons, not just a “pick ‘em.”
Although I’m an attorney and a long-time communications counselor, I’ve never presumed to be a sage on journalistic ethics. But no matter how salacious the revelations about “Bill Clinton, Inc.,” it is disquieting for me to witness the daily dumping of hacked private information labeled a “leak.”
Frankly, it’s an insult to the profession of journalism and to those of us who leak. A hack isn’t “on background” or “not-for-attribution.” It’s thievery.
Reporters have fallen prey to a misleading brand name. Reporters are calling the hacked emails of political operatives “leaks,” in part because they originated with an organization with “leak” in its name. If it were called “WikiHacks” or “WikiSteal,” the difference in perception would be profound. Media outlets might think long and hard before breathlessly recounting hacked information or accepting it on its face, while ignoring Russia’s capacity to deceive, distort and disrupt.
As a lifelong champion of the First Amendment, especially those court decisions safeguarding reporters’ right to protect confidential sources, I am being forced to confront my own hypocrisy on this issue. Years ago, I was an admirer of both WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden. Then WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange sought political asylum on rape and molestation charges; and Snowden felt the only way to protect his freedom of speech was to embrace Vladimir Putin.
Neither act was in the spirit of “The truth shall set you free.” Are we now at a point where either boundless money or hacking treachery determines the future of a democracy? Heaven help us when they are one.
When someone leaks information to reporters, the last thing they want is public acknowledgment. Indeed, leaks are often used as a way to protect clients and enervate their competitors, while, not incidentally, making the public aware of things they should know.
By necessity, sources and communications professionals must have a “frien-emies” relationship with reporters. We help them – but at the end of the day, we each have our own jobs to do. Wanton hacking threatens to shred that delicate balance.
Language matters. A “hack” is a hack. A “leak” is a leak. When media outlets mix up the two, they’re not advancing the cause of truth-seeking or an informed citizenry. They’re hastening its demise.
# # #
Richard Levick, Esq., @richardlevick, is Chairman and CEO of LEVICK, a global strategic communications firm.
