4 ms·

Are media embargos a new thing, or is just this reporter's first time around this block, and they're shocked to see the sausage get made. Quite frankly, the sci

Are media embargos a new thing, or is just this reporter's first time around this block, and they're shocked to see the sausage get made. Quite frankly, the science press has failed to earn the trust of scientists day in and day out for as long as science press have taken that title.

moefogs 10y ago
Media embargos are bog standard, and have been for ages.
Bartweiss 10y ago
The point I took is that conditional embargoes are much worse than simple ones. This is a long-discussed issue with video games. If you say "no reviews for our video game until release", that's just controlling timing. If you say "no negative reviews for our video game until release", you're manipulating the narrative. You don't ask anyone to lie (good reviews can still be totally sincere), but the gestalt is no longer natural. > "Embargoes that attempt to control sourcing are dangerous" It appears that the FDA is using conditional embargoes, and their specific conditions are what shocked reporters.
- stordoff 10y ago
  > You don't ask anyone to lie (good reviews can still be totally sincere), but the gestalt is no longer natural. What I'm seeing fairly often is "Review embargo: nth Month; Streaming embargo: n-7th Month". While there's an argument for it (reviewing a game takes time, but a stream can be done cold), I suspect it (in some cases at least) is a way to make sure good coverage comes out first - a streamer probably isn't going to be digging completely into the flaws of a game, and they are actively playing to an audience/trying to be entertaining, potentially making a mediocre game look better. It's not quite the same as controlling review content, but it definitely feels manipulative.
notfromhere 10y ago
Embargoes happen on the time; but usually controlling the narrative is super subtle rather than explicit. Most journalists aren't too critical of a source because they know next time they won't be given a release at all.

moefogs 10y ago

Media embargos are bog standard, and have been for ages.

Bartweiss 10y ago

The point I took is that conditional embargoes are much worse than simple ones. This is a long-discussed issue with video games. If you say "no reviews for our video game until release", that's just controlling timing. If you say "no negative reviews for our video game until release", you're manipulating the narrative. You don't ask anyone to lie (good reviews can still be totally sincere), but the gestalt is no longer natural. > "Embargoes that attempt to control sourcing are dangerous" It appears that the FDA is using conditional embargoes, and their specific conditions are what shocked reporters.

stordoff 10y ago
> You don't ask anyone to lie (good reviews can still be totally sincere), but the gestalt is no longer natural. What I'm seeing fairly often is "Review embargo: nth Month; Streaming embargo: n-7th Month". While there's an argument for it (reviewing a game takes time, but a stream can be done cold), I suspect it (in some cases at least) is a way to make sure good coverage comes out first - a streamer probably isn't going to be digging completely into the flaws of a game, and they are actively playing to an audience/trying to be entertaining, potentially making a mediocre game look better. It's not quite the same as controlling review content, but it definitely feels manipulative.

notfromhere 10y ago

Embargoes happen on the time; but usually controlling the narrative is super subtle rather than explicit. Most journalists aren't too critical of a source because they know next time they won't be given a release at all.