Get wired to win.
Is there any reason for embargoes to exist anymore?
I'm been a little hacked off this week by two cases of embargoes being imposed on stories, meaning they would essentially appear in print before they could appear online -- even though the news occurred the day before (obviously). One was involving the release of census information. Obviously imposed by the Census bureau.
And maybe I'm exaggerating. The embargo might have been midnight, so it could appear online before in print -- but, effectively, it's the same thing. At that hour, the online audience is mostly gone.
Another was a negotiated embargo by a local St. Louis arts institution. The embargo was 5 a.m., even though we had the news the day before. They would not give us the story, however, without the negotiated embargo. The news source wanted to control how the news was released, obviously, and when they had to talk to other media.
Do you have experiences with embargoes? Is there still a place for them?
And maybe I'm exaggerating. The embargo might have been midnight, so it could appear online before in print -- but, effectively, it's the same thing. At that hour, the online audience is mostly gone.
Another was a negotiated embargo by a local St. Louis arts institution. The embargo was 5 a.m., even though we had the news the day before. They would not give us the story, however, without the negotiated embargo. The news source wanted to control how the news was released, obviously, and when they had to talk to other media.
Do you have experiences with embargoes? Is there still a place for them?
Tags: embargo
4 Comments
-
Comment by Angela Connor on July 11, 2008 at 1:24pm - People who try to control the release of news in today's media landscape will ultimately lose. I'm not sure how much longer this will be effective. And once the census data is released, is it really u to those who released it to be responsible for or overly concerned about the way it's digested and reported? Just a thought.
-
Comment by Megan Taylor on July 11, 2008 at 7:35pm -
A "simplistic, misleading quickie" should never be something to fear from another publication. If they screwed up, even if they published first, the thoughtful, thorough story will win out.
With the Web-first mentality, I think embargoes will soon be a thing of the past.
-
Comment by Dave Brooks on August 4, 2008 at 11:47am -
> A "simplistic, misleading quickie" should never be something to fear from another publication. If they screwed up, even if they published first, the thoughtful, thorough story will win out.
Boy, I hope you're right. My experience, however, is that the misleading quickie wins the hearts and minds of readers every time - so far, the Twitter age doesn't seem to be changing that much.
Add a Comment
You need to be a member of Wired Journalists to add comments!
About Wired Journalists
Ryan Sholin
created this social network on Ning.
Where credit is due
Howard Owens and Zac Echola are the co-founders of Wired Journalists, sharing all the credit and blame with Ryan Sholin.
Patrick Thornton is around here somewhere, as well.
Contact any of us with questions, suggestions, or concerns.
Thanks!
Patrick Thornton is around here somewhere, as well.
Contact any of us with questions, suggestions, or concerns.
Thanks!
Chat
Loading Chat...
© 2008 Created by Ryan Sholin on Ning. Create your own social network
Often, however, embargoes are just a control issue. (An art institute?)