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.
-
-
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 -
-
Replying to @TheStalwart @felixsalmon and
Yeah I think this theory is pretty bizarre. Unless there's an explicit agreement to the contrary I think the subject of a story has every right in the world to preemptively react to the story.
4 replies 4 retweets 242 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538 @TheStalwart and
I’m not sure who you think you’re arguing against, Nate. And I know 538 isn’t really an investigative journalism shop. But if you had a scoop and asked the company in question for comment, you’d surely be aggrieved if they front-ran you.
7 replies 0 retweets 11 likes
Aggrieved, understandable. But I don’t think the company has an obligation to protect scoops or timing. Of course, if they develop a reputation, they will get the short comment period treatment. That’s also understandable.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @felixsalmon and
did anybody say they had an obligation? i didn’t see anyone with news experience making that claim. sorry if i missed it.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @lorakolodny @felixsalmon and
I was responding to Mike saying this: “that said, this attempt at a front-run is mindblowing.” I understand why the reporter might be upset, but what they did seems pretty mundane for 2020. Almost certainly will see more of it because, from CB’s POV, it’s not mindblowing at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 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.