Xconomy senior correspondent and San Francisco editor Wade Roush says he’s done with news embargoes.
In a column entitled, “The News Embargo Is Dead. Tech Crunch Killed It. Let’s Move On,” he writes that he’ll no longer agree to being “pre-briefed” by tech companies or PR firms with the understanding that he’ll wait to publish until the stories are made public— because he’s been burned one too many times.
What happened? TechCrunch went to press early with an embargoed story that he was also covering–making him look like an “also ran.”
In an email, Roush explained:
TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington…[claims] that TechCrunch has never broken an embargo. His implication was that in the cases where TechCrunch seemed to be publishing stories before the agreed embargo time, they’d been authorized to do so by companies or their PR firms who gave them an earlier embargo. Of course, an embargo where one party gets special treatment is no embargo at all, and if Arrington is to be believed, then the PR community (and not just Arrington himself, who long ago proclaimed “Death to the Embargo”) shares in the blame for the breakdown of the embargo as a reliable way to manage news. It’s a rotten system that I’m happy to walk away from.
Speaking as a former journalist who now works in PR, I am of two minds (or more).
Certainly, as a journalist, I didn’t liked being “scooped” when I honored an embargo. And no reporter wants to feel that s/he is being used to manage a company’s image. But, in covering health and science for national public television, I much appreciated having time to fully understand a development before I wrote about it.
From the PR side– I use embargoes because they allow me to research individual story angles rather than blast out the same pitch, to all reporters, all at the same time. True, those blasts can occasionally lead to a rush of interview requests—but sometimes you get so many that busy scientists or execs can’t respond to them all–leaving some journalists empty-handed. And, with today’s 24-hour news cycles, too many important stories are hastily written and errors are made.
I might mention that it’s not only journalists who get burned: I once sent an embargoed announcement to a reporter who did an end run–going to someone for information who was not in the know. The reporter beat out the pack but got the story wrong, pissed off his competitors, my client, and me. He no longer gets advance notice of my clients’ upcoming news.
I do think it’s great that Roush is NOT saying that he’ll knowingly break embargoes. Like Wall Street Journal reporters, he simply asks that sources not send him embargoed stories; he’ll wait to the info goes public, then decide what to do.
Will he still accept “exclusives”–in which a source promises that only he, Roush, will have the story, so that he can break it first?
Yes, I still love exclusives, as long as they turn out to be truly exclusive. If I learned later that a PR firm had given the same story to someone else, then that would destroy my trust in that firm and I’d stop working with them.
I do think it’s about trust in the end.
From all sides of my mind—I definitely agree. Trust is key.
–Anita M. Harris
Anita M. Harris is president of the Harris Communications Group, a public relations and marketing communications firm located in Cambridge, MA.