Is it just me that sees a legitimate need for close-hold embargoes in specific cases? In this case, the FDA was releasing new rules that would affect medical d

Is it just me that sees a legitimate need for close-hold embargoes in specific cases? In this case, the FDA was releasing new rules that would affect medical device manufacturers and hence their stock prices. If reporters went around asking industry people for comment about this, then they would have been spreading material non-public information that would very likely affect stock prices in those manufacturers. The embargo doesn't ban reporters from interviewing outside sources altogether. It only bans them from doing so until a certain time. If the journalist wants to be responsible, they can start interviewing after that time, and then publish a well-researched paper. Lots of assumptions are being made about intentions, but perhaps this article makes the issue seem more evil/conspiracy-like than it is.