5 ms·

Fun fact: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/09/security-update/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/09/security-update/ was published at 16:42:44. https://www.nyt

Fun fact: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/09/security-update/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/09/security-update/ was published at 16:42:44. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/technology/facebook-hack-data-breach.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/technology/facebook-hack-... was published at 16:45:41. NYT writes fast :)

laken 8y ago
In the journalism world, pre-written articles are apparently quite common. I assume they had a boilerplate already for the next Facebook controversy, and just wrote 2-3 opening paragraphs that were relevant for this one. CNN many years ago accidentally left some of their pre-written obituaries for (living) world figures publically accessible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries#The_CNN.com_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries#T...
- refurb 8y ago
  The FB press release was probably shared early with the agreement it would be embargoed by the media until FB made it official. It's not uncommon. It's how you build "friendly" relationships with the media. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
- the_clarence 8y ago
  This is probably not at all what happened. Things get heard and articles get quickly written. In this case it can even be the company spreading the news to key media companies in order to control the spreading of the news.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  In the journalism world, pre-written articles are apparently quite common. Actually, not "common" at all. Obituaries for famous people are often done in advance, since everyone dies. It used to be one of the things that young journalists/interns did to cut their teeth. But not every company has a massive security breach, so this was not pre-written. It's not uncommon for big companies to fax (yes, fax) bad news to news organizations a few hours or days before posting it on their own web sites. In the past, there would be embargoes on the information, but in the case of bad news, those are routinely ignored.
  - ianamartin 8y ago
    Welp, this sounds like a pretty bad practice. If there's one thing that journalists can count on, it's that famous companies are going to have a data breach. You should probably get on that.
untog 8y ago
It's possible they emailed the release out before it was published on the web, I suppose. It would make sense, as I imagine news outlets have follow up questions.
teagee 8y ago
...and posted on HN ~16:47
- askmike 8y ago
  Posting a link to HN takes 10 seconds. Writing a news article doens't.
basch 8y ago
It's also possible a bunch of them got logged out this morning, new something was up, and started fleshing out their prewritten template with details like the date and symptoms. I suspected there was a breach of some sort, when my tokens expired in three places simultaniously, this morning. First thing I did was search google news, nothing had been written yet. I wasnt sure they would ever announce it, probably depends on the scale.
jdminhbg 8y ago
> “We’re taking it really seriously,” Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s chief executive, said in a conference call with reporters. “We have a major security effort at the company that hardens all of our surfaces.” He added: “I’m glad we found this. But it definitely is an issue that this happened in the first place.” There was a conference call with reporters about the subject, so the press release public release was not the first the NYT knew about it. They likely had an embargo agreement.
- Angostura 8y ago
  I very very much doubt the NYT would have agreed to an embargo on a story like this. It's a major news story, not the launch of a new car.
  - devindotcom 8y ago
    Since you're just getting downvoted, I may as well say that as a member of the press it isn't uncommon to see embargoes on stuff like this. They don't say a week out "hey we've got a huge security announcement" but they do say "we have something coming out this afternoon and we're doing a briefing half an hour before if you agree not to publish before we go public." It's often in the interest of the reporter to agree to stuff like this since publishing security issues ahead of time can have serious negative consequences.
    - branchless 8y ago
      How many press members do you think see this open ticket for insider trading as a bonus worth keeping by keeping on the right side of these companies?
    - rblatz 8y ago
      This is in response to a dead reply on this chain. Unless you are in Congress it is illegal to trade on material non public information. So if a reporter traded on info in an embargoed press release they could be prosecuted for insider trading.
    - 8y ago
anarazel 8y ago
Or it was the other way round, they learned of the issue, asked for comment, accelerating the news release.
thrower123 8y ago
If the NY Times doesn't have Facebook corporate and PR infiltrated, then they aren't doing their job.
CPLX 8y ago
The press release was almost certainly sent to the NYT in advance of its release, but embargoed. Source: I spent years at a national PR agency
dkrich 8y ago
There's something ironic about NYT getting a lot of its traffic these days by writing recaps of Facebook news.
- justinph 8y ago
  * Citation needed
ransom1538 8y ago
"NYT writes fast :)" Facebook wrote it. They called their friend at NYT and handed over the article - then mentioned they would be sharing it with other outlets later. [just my guess].
- awad 8y ago
  Pre-disclosing news to publications is a standard affair in business and politics. Nothing out of the ordinary here.
  - nemtaro 8y ago
    I'm also surprised that many supposedly educated people on HackerNews don't seem to know these things. Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent decades ago. Read, you fools!
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      It's actually the 30th anniversary. Also, Herman wrote half the book!
- idlewords 8y ago
  That's a serious ethical accusation to make against a journalist. Make it if you have evidence, but not reasoning from first principles.
  - ethanwillis 8y ago
    They wrote it in 3 minutes, are you seriously saying first principles are not sufficient here?
    - idlewords 8y ago
      I am. Much more plausible is an embargoed story.
bduerst 8y ago
PR Teams will work with major news sources on the stories in advance of the announcement, in exchange for having an input on the final story.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

laken 8y ago

In the journalism world, pre-written articles are apparently quite common. I assume they had a boilerplate already for the next Facebook controversy, and just wrote 2-3 opening paragraphs that were relevant for this one. CNN many years ago accidentally left some of their pre-written obituaries for (living) world figures publically accessible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries#The_CNN.com_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries#T...

refurb 8y ago
The FB press release was probably shared early with the agreement it would be embargoed by the media until FB made it official. It's not uncommon. It's how you build "friendly" relationships with the media. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.
the_clarence 8y ago
This is probably not at all what happened. Things get heard and articles get quickly written. In this case it can even be the company spreading the news to key media companies in order to control the spreading of the news.
reaperducer 8y ago
In the journalism world, pre-written articles are apparently quite common. Actually, not "common" at all. Obituaries for famous people are often done in advance, since everyone dies. It used to be one of the things that young journalists/interns did to cut their teeth. But not every company has a massive security breach, so this was not pre-written. It's not uncommon for big companies to fax (yes, fax) bad news to news organizations a few hours or days before posting it on their own web sites. In the past, there would be embargoes on the information, but in the case of bad news, those are routinely ignored.
- ianamartin 8y ago
  Welp, this sounds like a pretty bad practice. If there's one thing that journalists can count on, it's that famous companies are going to have a data breach. You should probably get on that.

untog 8y ago

It's possible they emailed the release out before it was published on the web, I suppose. It would make sense, as I imagine news outlets have follow up questions.

teagee 8y ago

...and posted on HN ~16:47

askmike 8y ago
Posting a link to HN takes 10 seconds. Writing a news article doens't.

basch 8y ago

It's also possible a bunch of them got logged out this morning, new something was up, and started fleshing out their prewritten template with details like the date and symptoms. I suspected there was a breach of some sort, when my tokens expired in three places simultaniously, this morning. First thing I did was search google news, nothing had been written yet. I wasnt sure they would ever announce it, probably depends on the scale.

jdminhbg 8y ago

> “We’re taking it really seriously,” Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s chief executive, said in a conference call with reporters. “We have a major security effort at the company that hardens all of our surfaces.” He added: “I’m glad we found this. But it definitely is an issue that this happened in the first place.” There was a conference call with reporters about the subject, so the press release public release was not the first the NYT knew about it. They likely had an embargo agreement.

Angostura 8y ago
I very very much doubt the NYT would have agreed to an embargo on a story like this. It's a major news story, not the launch of a new car.
- devindotcom 8y ago
  Since you're just getting downvoted, I may as well say that as a member of the press it isn't uncommon to see embargoes on stuff like this. They don't say a week out "hey we've got a huge security announcement" but they do say "we have something coming out this afternoon and we're doing a briefing half an hour before if you agree not to publish before we go public." It's often in the interest of the reporter to agree to stuff like this since publishing security issues ahead of time can have serious negative consequences.
  - branchless 8y ago
    How many press members do you think see this open ticket for insider trading as a bonus worth keeping by keeping on the right side of these companies?
  - rblatz 8y ago
    This is in response to a dead reply on this chain. Unless you are in Congress it is illegal to trade on material non public information. So if a reporter traded on info in an embargoed press release they could be prosecuted for insider trading.
  - 8y ago

anarazel 8y ago

Or it was the other way round, they learned of the issue, asked for comment, accelerating the news release.

thrower123 8y ago

If the NY Times doesn't have Facebook corporate and PR infiltrated, then they aren't doing their job.

CPLX 8y ago

The press release was almost certainly sent to the NYT in advance of its release, but embargoed. Source: I spent years at a national PR agency

dkrich 8y ago

There's something ironic about NYT getting a lot of its traffic these days by writing recaps of Facebook news.

justinph 8y ago
* Citation needed

ransom1538 8y ago

"NYT writes fast :)" Facebook wrote it. They called their friend at NYT and handed over the article - then mentioned they would be sharing it with other outlets later. [just my guess].

awad 8y ago
Pre-disclosing news to publications is a standard affair in business and politics. Nothing out of the ordinary here.
- nemtaro 8y ago
  I'm also surprised that many supposedly educated people on HackerNews don't seem to know these things. Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent decades ago. Read, you fools!
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    It's actually the 30th anniversary. Also, Herman wrote half the book!
idlewords 8y ago
That's a serious ethical accusation to make against a journalist. Make it if you have evidence, but not reasoning from first principles.
- ethanwillis 8y ago
  They wrote it in 3 minutes, are you seriously saying first principles are not sufficient here?
  - idlewords 8y ago
    I am. Much more plausible is an embargoed story.

bduerst 8y ago

PR Teams will work with major news sources on the stories in advance of the announcement, in exchange for having an input on the final story.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]