It used to be so simple...A date and time was added to a press release, creating an embargo. The media usually obliged and the information appeared at the time its dispenser decreed.

But in this age of instant news websites, is an embargo still relevant?

They're certainly not easy to enforce - even on stories of national significance. Despite a strict agreement, the news that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan was revealed by an Australian celebrity magazine and then picked up by the mighty Drudge Report.

Within seconds the news was all around the world.

There are others times when information is made known to journalists but not the rest of the world for clear reasons.

In the case of kidnappings to ensure the victim's safety or to allow for the planning of coverage of big events, perhaps.

But if the Government slaps an embargo on a press release about a new plan to get kids to eat more healthily, a plan that's already complete and ready for journalists to peruse, why on earth should media organisations have to sit on it until the time of a minister, civil servant or policy wonk's chosing?

In the internet age doesn't it make sense to get the information out as soon as it's ready?

How much longer will the world's media be subject to an archaic device that is impossible to enforce in the digital age.

News is a hungry beast and it's only going to get more ravenous.

Iron-clad agreements which have been respected for the past few decades are decaying as the appetite for more news, faster, unedited, grows.

Comments

[carol-ann liverpool 14 Apr 2008 21:51:36]

Your pic makes me laugh in the light of the 'Headbanger' program where Wills and Harry are trying desperately to sound like 'normal blokes' and looking terrible twee in the process, classic.

[Victor, NW Kent 10 Apr 2008 08:07:24]

There must be a difference betwen a civil servant who leaks news in order to receive money from a newspaper and a whistle blower whose conscience tells him or her that a matter of great public concern is being laundered away from sight.

Being a civil servant is a job, not a religious or political calling. Civil servants are people.

[Madnurse 9 Apr 2008 12:35:43]

Peter:

I never aligned our governments to those of repressive regimes, I merely stated that many repressive states, such as China and the former USSR, have resorted to such tactics.

I agree it is difficult to define the public interest argument. That is why I suggest that the courts should decide whether there is a ligetimate defence or not. If for example a government took it's country to war on false information, would it be justifiable for a civil servant to blow the whistle? I am not suggesting any government has done this, I am merely asking if such a serious wrong doing by a government may justify such a course of action by a whistle blower.
If a government was using disabled people for experimentation purposes and covering it up, would a leak by a civil servant be justified, after all, the "I'm only following orders" defence was not allowed at Nurenburg? Again I am not saying any government has operated such a policy, I am merely asking the question. Is it always black and white? Should there be a legal defence of "in the public interest"? Should the courts, rather than a government minister decide whether something is in the public interest?
I still say, it is a difficult one and as a person that has signed the Official Secrets Act, I know very well what the implications of the said act are.

Incidently, I recently saw a property programme on the television that featured the coastal villages of Fife, may I say they looked very pretty and I am somewhat envious of the scenery you have up there.

[Jonathan, London 9 Apr 2008 12:28:44]

The paradox of this position is that the breaking down of the embargo system could ultimately make life worse for journalists. An embargoed press release can be sent out well in advance, giving journalists the chance to research, check and test the story properly, should they wish to do so. Any breaking down of this system will lead to people sending out releases at the same time as things are published/launched, giving busy journalists no time to check the release for accuracy.

So there will be two outcomes: stories will still be published at the same time but journalists will have even less time to check things than they do now. Surely a perverse outcome.

[Khalid 9 Apr 2008 12:14:14]

As is the nature of news, many a public conception or mis-conception is fulfilled by or eradicated by trustworthy news channels like http://www.sky.com/news , that the flow of news is put under [Self Control] so as to allow [Laura Branigan] digest other worthy items of news.
Insofar as politics and news, I would'nt complain about that, particulalry as you say, we live in the 21st century. Question is, why do Ministers leak matters of such national importance and not keep it under their hat like they do so eloquently with their expense claims? As for healthy living, damn right its in the public interest.

[Peter, Fife 9 Apr 2008 11:02:46]

Madnurse,

What is the definition of “the public interest” and how can an individual believe he or she alone can determine what is in the public interest when in fact they will merely be exercising their own prejudices?

To align United Kingdom Governments with “many oppressive regimes” I feels maligns all UK Governments; self interested and self serving possibly, oppressive to the extent to which I think you allude, never.

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 9 Apr 2008 10:38:01]

I think it is down to celebrity again, the government were very naive to think that Harry could serve in a war zone in today's electronic age. News travels faster than lightening across the world.
Maybe Harry should take on the role of a training officer at home, just a suggestion.

[Madnurse 9 Apr 2008 09:52:26]

Peter Fife:

I think the points you make about prosecuting those that leak information within the civil service are a little simplistic. I don't believe it is so black and white in every case.

I agree that, in general terms, those that choose such a course should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, however, what about the defence of "in the public's interest"? Many oppressive regimes adopt similar tactics for dealing with desenters and opponents of the regime.

I think it is a difficult one and a balance needs to be found between, on the one hand, national security and on the other, the public interest.

Who should be the arbiters of this balance? I suspect the independent judiciary.

It is a difficult one.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 9 Apr 2008 09:07:07]

Miranda,
The safety of Prince Harry, and his fellow soldiers, was the sole reason for the press being asked, and trusted, not to release the fact that he was in Afghanistan, and for the Australian and American organisations to break this trust was absolutely disgusting, and unforgivable, especially when you consider that troops from both of these countries are involved in the Middle East conflicts.

[Peter, Fife 9 Apr 2008 08:26:50]

Governments, i.e. the Civil Service, leaks like a sieve because it is populated by individuals who have no particular allegiance to the Government of the day; that said disclosure of said information remains a breach of the Civil Service codes and in many instances the Official Secrets Acts of 1911 and 1989.

I personally would drag before the courts all individuals found guilty of such deeds I would imprison the lot of them irrespective of the colour of the Government of the day, from political activists through the PC Brigade to idealists they are all beneath contempt; additionally I would also bring to justice those in receipt of such information as they are clearly complicit in such criminal acts.

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 8 Apr 2008 19:28:46]

News is news and travels quickly, even in 1912 when the Titanic went down, the news travelled very fast. In the age of computers and "moles", I think you know what I mean. Let news be fast, but true and accurate.
How many times have we heard news via a "leak", especially out of government departments, half the time you wouldn't know were it not for the "mole" who "leaked" it.