At last week’s “Embargo 2010: An Industry Conversation on Future Rules of Media Engagement,” tech journalists convened to discuss the viability of embargoes in an increasingly fluid media universe.
Update: Follow the debate as it evolves on Twitter, either on this handy site or with the #embargo2010 hashtag.
The discussion seems to have been spurred by the anti-embargo grandstanding of TechCrunch founder and editor Michael Arrington, who canceled a planned appearance on the panel despite his well-publicized penchant for breaking embargoes. Threatened by embargo scofflaws like Arrington, many seemed to believe the embargo system was on its way out, and they saw a number of possible replacements. The consensus centered around two options:
- Press conferences: This is already the prevailing model in the UK. Everyone gets the information at once, though a big conference is announced, there’s a general impression that somebody, somewhere will find a way to get the info early anyway. The downside, of course, is that folks don’t get as much time to prep their reports.
- Exclusives: For the lucky outlet, exclusives are great. They get plenty of time to prepare and a jump on the story. They’re not as popular with everyone else, for obvious reasons.
Update: Read BayNewser’s E.B. Boyd’s recap (complete with photos) here. Boyd emphasizes the interplay between public relations professionals and journalists.
Tech versus health
Web PR man Shel Holtz rebuts Arrington’s anti-embargo stance, claiming that tech journalism is a special case and that, in other arenas (he specifically cites health journalism), they are going nowhere. His post includes audio from an embargo-related conversation with Mayo Clinic media relations chief Karl Oestreich.
