I have begun to realize that "embargoes" (a method used to give journalists advance notice about breaking news) are slowly dying.
The modern age of technology is beginning to make them pointless. When news is pending, some organizations, such as Mayo Clinic, will offer an embargoed announcement.
That means the journalist consents not to publish a story until the agreed-upon time. It's an extremely useful method of helping reporters fully interpret news before publishing.
But, these days, announcements of this type are routinely posted on Internet-based news links for journalists. Those news links are accessible to the general public via the Web.
A story scheduled for release on Sunday (March 29, 2009) has already become public knowledge — if you know where to look (or stumble upon it) today (March 28, 2009).
If someone coincidentally searches Google for the "Mayo Clinic Department of Cancer Biology" and for researcher "Peter Storz" today (Saturday, March 28, 2009), the second
link that comes up is the embargoed press release for Sunday's (March 29, 2009) embargoed announcement.
Sure, in this case it would be quite a coincidence for someone to happen to be searching for Storz (and to know that he works with Mayo's Department of Cancer Biology, which doesn't seem to have much of an online presence).
But it points out something I've noticed a lot lately. "Embargoed" press releases often appear on Google,
GoodSearch and other search engines days before the embargo lifts. I happened to do this search while seeking a link to post about Storz. It was striking to me how easy it was to find the embargoed story, which is, in reality, already public because of its online presence.
If millions of Web users already have access to embargoed announcements, should journalists continue to honor embargoes?
Today's search might be a little obscure. But with more-common topics, it's highly likely Web searchers will often find "embargoed" announcements — before the embargo has been lifted.
An embargo helps journalists find time to read and understand background material, arrange and complete interviews and then publish news stories that gives a thorough analysis for readers.
Embargoes play a valuable role in accurate and thorough reporting.
But readers should realize that embargoes also play a role in control of the media — and the message. Reporters know that every news outlet is going to report the story once the embargo lifts. That results in a powerful, multi-media frenzy in which you receive the same message over and over again. Studies have shown that, to get a message across, it's important to repeat, repeat, repeat.
That means scientific journals that want to get their message out have a captive audience on the day the embargo lifts. The story, if it has enough news value, will be carried on the Web, in newspapers, on TV and on the radio.
If an enterprising journalist instead somehow stumbles across the story a week before the embargoed press release is sent, the medical journal, health system or university loses control of the message.
It seems to me that's what's happening with embargoes. Perhaps individual embargoes, where a journalist requests specific information on an embargoed basis, will continue to serve the public. But I think technology is slowly causing embargoes to lose their effectiveness.
Recent Comments