Redstate

Say what you like, but no more Bon Jovi references! Anything but that!

it's an information service.  Maybe we are all part of the people that should have early access... thanks for pointing to the site... I wish I saw it before the speech.

"Embargoed Until Delivery"

Did his mommy say he could have a blog?

A the post says, journalists are provided embargoed documents so they have time to research, interview, etc. before the event. For instance, virtually all East Coast papers were put to bed before Bush finished his speech last night. Without embargoed information they could not have reported on the speech until Saturday AM.

Violating an embargo is serious and most news producing organizations blacklist anyone who breaks an embargo and it makes them reluctant to release anything under embargo conditions. What this moron did is nothing less than the equivalent of violating a university honor code (as an aside, do universities even believe in honor codes anymore?) and has shown that his word is worthless. Its his loss.

is that the east coast papers should not be able to pretend they saw a speech they only read a draft of.

it all smacks of propping up "experts" as "experts".

Is violate an embargoed piece. I work at a radio facility where my position is taking in, recording, editing correspondent reports. Some of these from time to time are embargoed for various reasons. I'm bound to put them in a special file called appropriately enough....Embargoed for Release.

I've been at this job nearly 20 years and it is one of the few rules that the bosses demand total adherance. Violation of it not only could cost me my job (or least a suspension) but also could cost the correspondent who filed it the confidence of their source or the good will of the agency/source that gave them the information that report was based on.

You do not violate that trust. Do it and you deserve whatever retribution comes your way, either from your employer, your source, or your peers.

Those who believe they are acting in good faith can not always be expected to be courteous to those who they feel are making serious mistakes in need of correction.  Unless you believe that Kos is corrupt, and not really acting in what he truly believes is the best interest of the country, then I don't see how you can fault him for what he has done.

The major news wires have traditionally carried embargo requests when made prominent, but subscribers have never had any legal obligations to respect then.  AP has a hold-harmless clause in their contracts for such things, because often embargo requests get violated by mistake, plus, many papers (e.g., weeklies) might not have the resources to respect the letter of embargoes and still serve competitively.

The respect of such requests is always at the option of the editor, and it is understood that in cases of serious import, embargos will not always be respected.  Unless you have collected some kind of consideration of a contract that requires respect of such requests, you can not expect anyone to honor it.

Compare our traditions with those of China, where the SARS outbreak was embargoed until one brave medical doctor spoke up.

First, you are confusing a story embargoed by a wire service to its subscribers with a story embargoed by the orignator to the press.

The federal agencies I work with blacklist people who break embargoes. They get the news when it happens and not a second before. In fact, I don't know of a public affairs/public relations practitioner anywhere who will deal with someone who breaks an embargo. So your statement that it is understood that in cases of serious import, embargos will not always be respected is nothing short of grotesque misstatment.

You seem to be saying that it is perfectly acceptable to give your promise on something and then decide that since it is inconvenient to keep your word you can break it with a clear conscience. That attitude is nothing short amoral. But then again, it certainly goes a long way towards explaining so many actions by the left.

I can't say if this "Kos" character is corrupt, what I can say with 100% degree of certainty is that he is not honest and cannot be trusted to keep his word.

The bloggers ignored the embargoes at the DNC as well. Anyone who thinks that the convention speeches (for either party) are so sensitive as to require that only the enlightened few should get to read along with the speakers must have heard different ones than I did.

I don't think any state secrets were broken by learning that the Democrats have lots and lots of hope, that both parties feel terrible about September 11, that the Republicans think John Kerry is very, very bad, that noone at the RNC would mention Osama bin Laden, and that both parties hate to talk about gays and abortion.

then go back on it.

In the civilized world that is referred to as "lack of integrity" or even as "lying."

Your word is either good or it isn't there are no shades of gray here.

Where'd you get the idea anyone gave their word? One could sign up to receive the speeches without making any promises to honor embargoes.

Lying is wrong, but that didn't happen here.

What do you think about restricting the privilege of reading the speeches to the establishment media?

The dateline reads "Embargoed Until ----"

Again, in the civilized world accepting such a communication means you agree to it.

I know the concept of honor, propriety, and decency... and even professionalism... are rather elastic on the left, but let's not stretch the envelope too far.

you are confusing a story embargoed by a wire service to its subscribers with a story embargoed by the orignator to the press

They're the same thing.  If I'm a wire service reporter, and an official gives me a release with an embargo notice, he wants that release on the wire ASAP with the embargo notice intact so local editors can ready the first draft of their story.  If he doesn't want it on my wires, he doesn't give it to me.  I've never heard of an embargo which forbids use of a document, just "final" publication.  And what is final in the blogosphere?

You seem to be saying that it is perfectly acceptable to give your promise on something and then decide that since it is inconvenient to keep your word you can break it with a clear conscience.

When an official hands an embargoed release to a wire reporter, that reporter isn't even allowed to promise it will be respected.  The AP contract specifically disclaims any such promises.

Why wouldn't final publication, which would, to me, imply a public release by way of publication in Old Media, be equivalent to posting the story to the Internet for a blogger? Because he can still revise the story? Spare me.

Once it's posted publically, you lose control over it. It can be grabbed by the Google cache, and, even more simply and irretrievably, someone can read whatever version you put out there. You can take it down, but there's nothing to stop someone from saving it to their hard drive or retrieving it from their browser's cache.

And, in the mean time, he's violating existing tradition and courtesy, which makes him, and, by extension, other bloggers, look like an unreliable jerk.