In journalism and public relations, a news embargo or press embargo is a request by a source that the information or news provided by that source not be published until a certain date or certain conditions have been met. The understanding is that if the embargo is broken by reporting before then, the source will retaliate by restricting access to further information by that journalist or his publication, giving them a long-term disadvantage relative to more cooperative outlets. They are often used by businesses making a product announcement, by medical journals, and by government officials announcing policy initiatives; the media is given advance knowledge of details being held secret so that reports can be prepared to coincide with the announcement date and yet still meet press time. In theory, press embargoes reduce inaccuracy in the reporting of breaking stories by reducing the incentive for journalists to cut corners in hopes of "scooping" the competition.
Embargoes are usually arranged in advance as "gentlemen's agreements". However, sometimes publicists will send embargoed press releases to newsrooms unsolicited in hopes that they will respect the embargo date without having first agreed to do so — the phrase "For Immediate Release" often found at the top of press releases indicates that the information in the release is not embargoed.
News organizations sometimes break embargoes and report information before the embargo expires, either accidentally (due to miscommunication in the newsroom) or intentionally (to get the jump on their competitors). Breaking an embargo is typically considered a serious breach of trust and can result in the source barring the offending news outlet from receiving advance information for a long period of time.
News embargoes are one of several ways a source can influence media presentation of the information they provide; others include providing information "on background" or "not for attribution", limiting or providing "access", or even direct government or market intervention against the reporters or media company. (See confidentiality terminology in journalism for a full discussion of these.) The manner in which journalists react to these and other attempts to influence coverage are a matter of journalistic ethics.
- Biweekly press briefings from the International Monetary Fund are typically embargoed until 10:30 a.m. Washington time, 1430 GMT (for synchronised effect on global stock markets).
- Reporters who accompanied U.S. President George W. Bush on a Thanksgiving visit to Iraq in 2003 were embargoed from filing until the President left the country. They were told that, in the interests of security, the trip would be canceled if news broke before its conclusion.
- The Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom informed a handful of journalism outlets that Prince Harry would be serving in Afghanistan, on condition that the information not be released until the end of his deployment. The information was leaked after about two months, and officials agreed to end the embargo. The prince was immediately removed from the battlefield, reportedly for his safety and that of his fellow soldiers.
- In Canada, Australia and other countries, prior to the release of the budget and other important government announcements, reporters are held in a "lockup" so that they can prepare stories in advance. They are not permitted to file until after the official announcement (for example, after the Minister of Finance rises to deliver the budget speech.) Lockups are particularly aimed at preventing insider trading on the basis of leaked government announcements. It is uncertain if a similar lockup is done in the United States when the Federal Reserve Board is preparing to adjust an interest rate.
- The New York Times in 2008 prompted suppression of the story of the kidnapping of David Rohde (their reporter) in news outlets and on Wikipedia until his return in 2009. This example, in which the instigator of the embargo is not the source, may be a case of self-censorship instead.
On articles in scientific journals
News embargoes are commonly applied on information of health-related news regarding upcoming medical journal articles. All major medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet, have publication embargoes.
The JAMA embargo probably dates back to the editorship of Morris Fishbein, from 1924 to 1949, and holds until 15:00 Central Time on the day before the cover date of the issue. Journalists who agree to not publish (in print, on television, on radio, or via Internet) until that time the information contained in a manuscript to be published by the journal receive advance copies of the journal by mail during the week before publication. For selected articles, press releases and news release videos are also prepared by science writers and released to journalists during that week.
The reasons given for such embargoes are twofold. First, they enable journalists to produce more comprehensive and accurate coverage, as the embargo provides time in which they can research the background to a story and thus publish "backgrounders" along with the story's release. Second, they enable doctors and scientists to receive and to analyze medical studies before the general public does, enabling them to be better informed when called upon to comment or to react by journalists or by patients. However, some object to the medical news embargo system, claiming that it is driven by profit motives on the parts of the medical journals.
- Damage control
- Journalism sourcing
- Media bias
- Media democracy
- Media transparency
- Publication ban
- Press censorship
- Moniz, Dave; Judy Keen (2003-11-27). "Secrecy, precautions minimized risk". USA Today. Retrieved 2006-12-02.
- Hildebrandt, Amber (2006-02-05). "CBC News Indepth: Federal Budget 2006". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2006-12-02.
- Allan, Tony (2007-05-14). "ABC Rural Victorian Country Hour Blog: Locked up with the Federal Budget". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
- Phil B. Fontanarosa; Annette Flanagin & Cathering D. DeAngelis (2000-12-13). "THE JOURNAL's Policy Regarding Release of Information to the Public" (PDF). Journal of the American Medical Association 284 (22): 2929–2931. doi:10.1001/jama.284.22.2929. PMID 11147991.
- John Roberts (1994-04-30). "Medicine and the media: News embargoes — in whose interest?". British Medical Journal 308 (6937): 1168–1169. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6937.1168a.
- Joseph Loscalzo; Robert O. Bonow & Alice K. Jacobs (2004). "Coronary Calcium Screening and the American Heart Association News Embargo". Circulation (American Heart Association, Inc.) 110 (23): 3504–3505. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000151096.25445.34. PMID 15583087. — a detailed report on a news embargo on a Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association and the consequences of it being breached by journalists
- Phil B. Fontanarosa; Catherine D. DeAngelis (2002-08-14). "The Importance of the Journal Embargo". Journal of the American Medical Association 288 (6): 748–750. doi:10.1001/jama.288.6.748. PMID 12169080. — a detailed report on a news embargo on a story about a scientific study and the consequences of it being breached by journalists
- Jerome P. Kassirer & Marcia Angell (1994-06-02). "Violations of the Embargo and a New Policy on Early Publicity". New England Journal of Medicine 330 (22): 1608–1609. doi:10.1056/NEJM199406023302211. PMID 8177252. — the reaction of the NEJM and the National Cancer Institute to a violation of an embargo by ABC's World News Tonight in 1994
- Fred Molitor (1993). "Accuracy in Science News Reporting by Newspapers: The Case of Aspirin for the Prevention of Heart Attacks". Health Communication (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.) 5 (3): 209–224. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc0503_4. — a study of how a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine was reported by journalists who "omitt[ed] information, sensationaliz[ed] the results of the study, and [made] incorrect generalizations", and "may have been responsible for promoting unhealthy behaviors".
- Vincent Kiernan (1998). "Changing Embargoes and the New York Times' Coverage of the Journal of the American Medical Association" (abstract). Science Communication (SAGE Publications) 19 (3): 212–221. doi:10.1177/1075547098019003003. — a report that embargoed early access to journals, granted to medical and science journalists, is an information subsidy that encourages greater coverage of the journals in news media
- Vincent Kiernan (1997). "Ingelfinger, Embargoes, and Other Controls on the Dissemination of Science News" (abstract). Science Communication (SAGE Publications) 18 (4): 297–319. doi:10.1177/1075547097018004002. — a study of whether "journal editors may [...] be using [news embargoes and the Ingelfinger Rule] to enhance the status of their publications, with an eye toward attracting better scientific papers, expanding circulation, and luring advertising"
- Eliot Marshall (1998-10-30). "Embargoes: Good, Bad, or "Necessary Evil"?". Science 282 (5390): 860–867. doi:10.1126/science.282.5390.860.
- Morgan PP (1984-02-01). "Scientific journals and the news media: partners or competitors?". Canadian Medical Association Journal 130 (3): 252. PMC 1875359. PMID 6692201.
- Relman AS (1988-04-07). "Reporting the aspirin study: the Journal and the media". New England Journal of Medicine 318 (14): 918–920. doi:10.1056/NEJM198804073181409. PMID 3352675.
- d'Adler MA (1988). "The transfer of medical information. A journalist's view". Int Journal Technol Assess Health Care 4 (1): 59–63. doi:10.1017/S0266462300003263. PMID 10287116.
- Michael S. Wilkes (1997-02-01). "The Public Dissemination of Medical Research: Problems and Solutions". Journal of Health Communication (Routledge) 2 (1): 3–15. doi:10.1080/108107397127888.
- J. Stacey (1985-10-11). "The press embargo: friend or foe?". Journal of the American Medical Association 254 (14): 1965. doi:10.1001/jama.254.14.1965. PMID 3900440.
- Schecter, Danny (2006). When News Lies: Media Complicity and the Iraq War. Select Books (NY). ISBN 1-59079-073-1.