When the Journalism School at Columbia University released a report prepared by Leonard Downie and Michael Schudson about the future of American journalism, it did what many organizations do when they want the maximum amount of publicity for their news: They offered the report to a handful of journalists under an embargo.
The school reached out to reporters on the media beat, including Reuters journalist Robert MacMillan and Slate.com’s Jack Shafer. The embargo was set for the morning of Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009, and both MacMillan and Shafer accepted. But on the Sunday night before the embargo was up, The New York Times‘ Web site published David Carr’s weekly media column which outlined the report.
Also on Mediabistro
MacMillan was angry that he had been scooped. “I called the spokeswoman I had been working with, and she told me that someone else there got a call from David Carr who asked her if he could run a story about the report for his Monday column,” he explained. “She said yes, but no one told me.”
Shafer heard the same story. “I was told that David had asked, and if I had asked they would have lifted it for me. So why have an embargo? If they were going to lift it, why not tell everyone?”
The Case for Embargoes
An embargo occurs when journalists are requested to delay running a story until an agreed upon date and time, explained Sandra Sokoloff, senior vice president and director of national media relations for PR agency Porter Novelli. But it’s not to be confused with an exclusive, which is an arrangement with a specific media outlet or journalist to get and run a story first.
Many journalists will agree that accepting an embargo runs counter to their instincts to find and report breaking news, and bloggers like TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington, Alan Mutter, and Shafer himself have written about the death of the practice. Still, their prevalent use by public relations professionals, corporations and nonprofit organizations makes them difficult to avoid, especially when covering specific beats that focus on public companies, medicine, science, technology or the government.
Nicholas Lemann, the dean of the Journalism School at Columbia University said this was the first time he had ever used an embargo during his tenure as dean. He said Carr, The Washington Post‘s op-ed editor, and Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz all approached him seeking to run a story on the report a day early. “I made the call to say yes to these things,” said Lemann. “What I should have done, and what I wished I [had] done, was send an email to everyone who had been sent an embargoed copy, telling them that the embargo had been moved back to 8 a.m. Monday. I apologize for not doing that.”
Despite the slip-up, Lemann said he believed in the rationale behind embargoes and, if necessary, would use one again. “The argument for an embargo is that we wanted people to read the report,” he said. “If you just put it up online all of a sudden, then it’s very hard to get people to actually read it.”
Even staunch critics, like Robert M. Steele, Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values at the Poynter Institute and a visiting professor of journalism at DePauw University, say embargoes have a place. “Ideally, an embargo is only put in place in cases where it’s valuable for the journalist to take time to understand some complicated material and to be able to research and verify certain information in order to write a more substantive story,” Steele said.
From a Reporter’s Point of View
Unfortunately, reporters say mishandlings like the Columbia report happen all too often. And it gives embargoes a bad name. Publicists have a duty to their clients to disseminate news as effectively as possible, but a journalist has to trust the information that s/he is receiving from a publicist. When limits are placed on what news can be reported and when, red flags naturally arise.
“Generally I don’t mind embargoes when the people involved in setting them up handle them fairly,” MacMillan said. “I would prefer that we didn’t have embargoes and that reporters did their job by chasing news. And I would prefer that companies, if they had something to say, would say it, rather than setting up an event for the simple purpose of getting maximum press coverage in what almost looks like a spontaneous burst of news from all over the place.”
| “If I’m going to be reporting news that is going to be fed to me by a public relations professional, they should also be telling me the truth.” |
Like many reporters, MacMillan has been burned by embargoes. Sometimes, another reporter will break the embargo on purpose. Other times, it might be accidental. Most infuriating is when a publicist promises an exclusive to one person and allows them to release the news before anyone else, keeping other reporters who agree to the embargo in the dark. To avoid this trap, MacMillan asks publicists who else is getting the news and whether they are subject to the same restrictions.
“I’m under an ethical obligation not to tell lies. If I’m going to be reporting news that is going to be fed to me by a public relations professional, they should also be telling me the truth. The reader is the highest priority to everyone, including the flack,” MacMillan said.
MacMillan has also started to experiment with a technique that he calls “the suicide option.” After accepting an embargo, he warns the publicist he’s working with that if the story comes out anywhere else before his runs, he’ll pull his story. “I tell them that I’d rather hold a gun to my head and pull the trigger than run it,” he said. “Because at that point, what good is it doing my readers?”
“This is why honesty and transparency are so important when dealing with exclusives and embargoes,” agreed Porter Novelli’s Sokoloff. “Many times miscommunication can lead to an embargo break… We recently managed an exclusive with a national business publication, and offered embargoes to other outlets with the understanding that their stories could not run until one minute after the exclusive story was up. We emailed every journalist we spoke to about the terms of the exclusive and the embargo and asked them to email us back indicating that they agreed to these terms. All of the journalists felt they were dealt with fairly and honestly, and the client received wonderful, widespread media coverage.”
While Porter Novelli found reporters who were receptive to their terms, others like MacMillan might not take lightly to playing second banana to another news outlet. “In practice, I accept embargoes often because I want to get certain bits of news out, and if this is the only way I can do it and if I think that readers will benefit from this news, I’ll accept the embargo,” MacMillan said. “But don’t disrespect me by telling me that I and my readers are less important than someone else.”
A Symbiotic Relationship
The worst part about poorly executed embargoes is the feeling of helplessness they create. Reporters can’t choose not to work with certain companies and publicists again, especially if they cover a specific beat. Publicists also must work with the same reporters over and over again, depending on the news coverage their clients desire.
“A breach in trust on either side runs the risk of permanently damaging a relationship, and there’s so much competition out there — for publicists trying to get their stories told and for journalists living in a fragmented, volatile media world — the importance of these relationships has never been greater,” said Matt Biscuiti, senior vice president at The Lippin Group.
No matter how hard both sides work to cultivate open and honest relationships, there are some from both camps who continue to argue for its demise. “Embargoes should go the way of the dodo bird,” said Curtis Hougland, the founder of PR agency Attention. “Our communication with the media should strive to be more transparent — sharing versus pitching. Regardless, invariably the information leaks out, and a blogger not on embargo ends up scooping the news. Embargoes are in neither parties’ interest.”
Shafer agrees: “I think [embargoes] are one of the many mechanisms that sources use to manipulate journalists,” he said. “I think they should all be abolished. I think they should all be put in an iron coffin and taken out to the Marianas trench and lost forever. They’re useless.”
Regardless of their efficacy or lack thereof, embargoes don’t seem to be disappearing any time soon. That means both journalists and publicists need to tread carefully. Steele, who warns against accepting embargoes, has perhaps some of the best advice: Remain skeptical.
“I think journalists should always ask the question of why [a publicist is] asking for an embargo,” Steele said. “It’s the same question we should ask when people ask for confidentiality. Why should I honor this embargo? Then you can hear what the argument is, the rationale in the case of an embargo, and ideally the journalist, or the reporter and his editors, will decide, ‘Is this is an embargo we should agree to?'”
Tips for publicists on placing embargoes:
1. Make sure the strategy is best for your client and the news that you are releasing.
2. Know a little about the reporters you offer the embargo to, their publications and their audience. “If you know, for example, that a particular blogger never honors embargoes, then you probably don’t want to approach them unless you are best friends,” Biscuiti said.
3. Be transparent and honest in all your communications with journalists.
4. To avoid getting burned, make sure that both you and the reporter understand the terms of the agreement before you share the entire story. But, be ready to react in case someone breaks the embargo.
5. Whatever you do, don’t send a press release to everyone you know and claim its “embargoed.” It’s important to have a dialogue with your targeted journalists in advance.
Tips for journalists on accepting or refusing an embargo:
1. As Steele advises, always question why the information is being embargoed and if it’s worth agreeing to. How important is this information to your readers?
2. See if you can have the information being offered as an exclusive instead, or if you can have it before other reporters. “I once asked recently if I could have something exclusively, and they said yes,” MacMillan said. ” You never know what you get if you ask.”
3. After accepting, confirm that everyone else who agreed to the embargo has the same terms as you. Also remind the publicist to let you know if anything changes before the embargo is lifted.
4. If the embargo times sound strange, like 8 a.m. or noon instead of midnight, ask why. And don’t forget to check the time zone.
5. Add your own reporting. Even though a publicist is handing you news, don’t be afraid to do original coverage of the story.
Amanda Ernst is editor of FishbowlNY.
Topics:
Mediabistro Archive
