Do journalists consider it offensive if people talk publicly about themselves when they know they’re about to be written about? I don’t understand what the breach of trust is.
-
-
Replying to @pt
A lot of this is just basic comms strategy questions. An outlet comes to a company ahead of the story in good faith to get advance answers to questions, with the understanding that company company won’t give up the story or facts before it is published.
29 replies 0 retweets 60 likes -
Replying to @MikeIsaac
Ok. I wasn’t aware that was the understanding on facts shared for response. It’s not like the NYT is gonna stop calling to fact check though, so I can see why they might not see tons of downside at the exec level. Maybe the coms people feel bad & will be hurt, but not their call.
2 replies 0 retweets 43 likes -
Replying to @pt
well that’s the gamble they make. Maybe before nyt would give CB days to figure things out or get their response together. The next call maybe be “we need your comment within one hour.” All goodwill is gone
24 replies 0 retweets 37 likes -
Replying to @MikeIsaac @pt
There is a bit of a double standard though. Journalists say “I can report everything you tell me any time I want, unless we have an explicit ex ante agreement otherwise”. And yet they also expect companies to keep information secret with no such agreement.
5 replies 10 retweets 314 likes -
CB can’t say “well, tell us what you’re going to say and when you’re going to say it, and we’ll prepare a blog post to go up 1 minute later in response.” NYT would never agree to such a deal.
5 replies 2 retweets 113 likes -
Also, what’s the downside for CB? What’s the sanction? Shorter heads up time?
1 reply 0 retweets 32 likes -
It’s not tit-for-tat. But all companies including Coinbase work hard on building good relations with the press, for myriad reasons. This action damages those relations.
7 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Right but in this case the negative story—from their perspective—is coming out anyway. And for this particular company culturally positioning themselves against the New York Times probably plays well with their potential customer base. That’s new.
4 replies 1 retweet 25 likes -
Right. Being on the wrong side of the NYT means being supported by many employees and potential employees who consider the NYT to be an actively malign force in The Valley. (I don’t think CB’s customers really care one way or the other.)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Okay, their employees. Fair point. That’s probably more important to them. What I’m saying is that I don’t think this is illogical from their standpoint.
-
-
short term thinking imo. May (and this is a big May) help in this instance. But it’s a decision that also affects untold stories in the future (beyond nyt, too, as other pubs are watching) if they truly believe media is irrelevant, god bless them. but i don’t think they do
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @MikeIsaac @zeynep and
(Also! Absolutely destroying media credibility in the year before a planned IPO is what I would call “a choice”)
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.