What a great idea for a blog – with a focus solely on the practice of embargoes in the management of the flow of health/medical/science news and information.
Reuters Health executive editor Ivan Oransky just launched his Embargo Watch blog last week but already has a faithful following. It’s evidence, I think, of what a sore subject embargoes are and have been with so many who have toiled in these fields for so (too?) long.
In his initial post, Oransky wrote:
“You’ve probably noticed that every major news organization — including mine, Reuters — seems to publish stories on particular studies all at once. Embargoes are why.
A lot of journals, using services such as Eurekalert.org, release material to journalists before it’s officially published. Reporters agree not to publish anything based on those studies until that date, and in return they get more time to read the studies and obtain comments.
That would seem to be a good thing for science and health journalism, much of which is reliant on journals for news because it’s peer-reviewed — in other words, it’s not just a researcher shouting from a mountaintop — and punctuates the scientific process with “news events.”
Vincent Kiernan doesn’t agree. In his book, Embargoed Science, Kiernan argues that embargoes make journalists lazy, always chasing that week’s big studies. They become addicted to the journal hit, afraid to divert their attention to more original and enterprising reporting because their editors will give them grief for not covering that study everyone else seems to have covered.
But even if embargoes are a necessary evil, they’re not uniform, and how each organization deals with them provides case studies in some of the chinks in embargoes’ armor.”
Ironically (or was this a test case?), Reuters itself lost its advance notice “privileges” from the American Heart Association last week for jumping an embargo by a whopping 43 minutes. (Correction added 12:21 pm Central time, March 1: They jumped the embargo by 1 hour and 43 minutes. A bit more whopping.)
The Embargo Watch blog is a great concept. It becomes a repository for embargo-related issues. It provides a social media platform for all parties involved in the dissemination of health/medical/science (and other) news and information to weigh in on the issue. Who knows? It may even lead to a better system.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Paul Scott
March 1, 2010 at 1:48 pmOne cure might be to swear off daily i.e. “breaking” health journalism altogether. Magazine schlubs like us, er, me, have no need for the embargo dance because the lead times or so long, and you therefore have to think about reporting health stories differently, as issues, hopefully.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like