this is the biggest piece of bull that's come across my favorite blog in awhile. takes two to embargo, eh? If somebody sends a journo a piece of news, and the journo has made no deal to "hold" the news, then it's open season. If some rummy makes an embargo deal, that's his or her problem. I thought the NY Times was in the news release business, not the news supression biz. if some flak can't figure that out, tough titty.

I know it's an old moldy j-ethics controversy, but I disagree. I think embargoes used judiciously can improve journalism, and they certainly don't hurt it. If the WHO or Caltech or whoever is going to release a complex study on a Sunday, as a journalist I'm better off -- and my readers are better off -- if I get it a few days ahead. Gives me time to figure out what it means that all the dark matter in the universe is missing, or whatever. If an embargo offends me, I always have the choice of not accepting the study early. But that's my only legitimate choice. Taking it on Wednesday and publishing it, then acting like I got it first, is lame and usually unethical IMO.

How to react when an embargo is broken by somebody else is more complicated. For another post maybe. From what I understand, it comes up a lot in the science and medical area in regard to the NYT.

okay, maybe I didn't make my point clearly. If somebody gives me information, and I've made no deals to suppress it, why can't I run with it? flaks are always sending stuff out saying, "this is great news, but please don't run it till sunday." If I haven't made a deal with a flak to hold it to sunday, it's fair game. (unless it's just pr bullshit, which makes the whole idea of the "embargo" useless) the question is, did the NY times writer break her word? I can't answer that one.

Ah, Laurie Garrett. Haven't seen her in a while ever since that fawning email from Davos somehow got posted.