Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Scott Rosenberg
Is this you? Claim Profile »
10 months ago
in Embargoes: Thanks but no thanks on Mathew's comments
I find it amusing that this conversation is happening in 2008. It's like the professional blogosphere must gradually recapitulate every ethical quandary from the days of the old trade press.
I suppose there's a parallel to respecting pub dates for books, opening dates for movies, etc. But mostly, the whole embargo concept is, as you say, all about convenience for first the company first, and the publication at a distant second. The reader comes last.
At Salon, we never agreed to embargoes. But then again we thought the Web's advent meant such cozy backscratching would become a thing of the past anyway. Whoops.
I suppose there's a parallel to respecting pub dates for books, opening dates for movies, etc. But mostly, the whole embargo concept is, as you say, all about convenience for first the company first, and the publication at a distant second. The reader comes last.
At Salon, we never agreed to embargoes. But then again we thought the Web's advent meant such cozy backscratching would become a thing of the past anyway. Whoops.
2 replies
mathewi
Thanks for the comment, Scott. I must admit that I hoped the Web and blogs would mean the end of such things as well, but that doesn't seem to be the case, unfortunately.
Ryan
Perhaps if the trade/traditional press had _settled_ these issues, or done so properly, a recapitulation would not be neccesary. But you'll still see the WSJ, Wapo and AP doing embargoes for example
http://gawker.com/5016656/wsj-short-on-copy-edi...
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/6/fcc_signs_of...
http://gawker.com/5016656/wsj-short-on-copy-edi...
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/6/fcc_signs_of...
