Talk:News embargo

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Bloomberg Disciplines Journalists Over Prisoner Swap Article — The news organization said it had broken an embargo about the news in a violation of its editorial standards.

Untitled

There are many, many problems with this article:

An embargo is different from censorship. News embargos are generally voluntary -- journalists observe them so as not to burn their bridges with a source, but they are not legally compelled to obey. The word "imposed" in the first graf suggests that reporters are under some legal obligation when in most if not all cases they are not -- at least in the U.S. In fact, news is usually "embargoed" when the source gives the information voluntarily but asks that it not be published until a certain time.
An embargo is different from a court-ordered publication ban, and a court-ordered publication ban is different from censorship (or at least, a court-ordered publication ban is not what is generally meant by censorship.)
An embargo is different from classified information. Furthermore, as far as I know the U.S. government has no legal power to prevent publication of a story, and there is a big difference between leaking something classified being illegal and publishing the leaked information. Other countries with Official Secrets Acts may be different.
I have no idea what "damage control" is supposed to mean. If it is supposed to be some sort of retroactive "news embargo," I do not think that it is a strategy often attempted or ever successful.
The link put forward to support the idea of an "embargo" on news about Iraq is very slanted and when it talks about an "embargo", it's talking about the economic sanctions. The word "embargo" is a pun.
There are no sources to support the existence of a news embargo on peak oil, the Iranian oil bourse, the Abu Grahib scandal or the Kosovo Liberation Army-al Qaeda connection.
I'm pretty sure this article should be titled News embargo, not News Embargo.
Bottom line: a news embargo is a very specific thing. It is not simply information that somebody doesn't want reported.

I'd be happy to help with this article but I know other people have worked on it and I don't want to suddenly start slashing at it. Greyfedora 06:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll amend my comment to say that the U.S. government has extremely limited legal power to prevent publication of a story. Greyfedora 06:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite during AfD

I've rewritten the article into a pretty sparse stub about what I understand is the usual meaning of the term; article still needs sources, examples, expansion and integration into the rest of the journalism articles, but hopefully this is better than deleting it. BCoates 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

There's an awful lot in the articles cited in the "Further reading" section that isn't yet in the article. The article by Eliot Marshall is a mine of content, for example. Uncle G 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection for 'Media Censorship'

Searching for the term 'Media Censorship' still redirects to this article, when it is no longer really appropriate. Is it possible to redirect this search term to a different, more suitable article? abdullahazzam 13:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky

I'm not sure why "See Also" lists Noam Chomsky, the articles doesn't mention him nor does his article mention embargo. --24.224.190.187 02:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Embargo Watch?

A noted Reuters editor, Ivan Oransky, has a blog dedicated to both cataloging and discussing embargoes (particularly medical and scientific embargoes), including embargo policies and embargo violations. The blog has been cited in several notable publications (including NPR, Columbia Journalism Review and the Guardian). Can this be added to the "Further Reading" section.

Link is http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/.

--Bbr53636 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on News embargo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on News embargo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928133543/http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/members/securedDocuments/v27n1p007.pdf to http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/members/securedDocuments/v27n1p007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]