Talk:News embargo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article. | |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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in the U.S. In fact, news is usually "embargoed" when the source gives the information voluntarily but asks that it not be published until a certain time.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)
- 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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
