It’s also routine journalist practice aimed at deepening coverage of breaking news.
-
-
Absolutely.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @sivavaid @daniellecitron and
I agree. She didn't do anything wrong and hardly anyone is saying so. But I worry: aren't we playing into legitimation even by demanding they not play favorites with embargo? It's what we'd ask of gov, not an NGO.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @BostonJoan @sivavaid and
It seems to me that if the entire enterprise is illegitimate anyway, we shouldn’t care one way or the other whether it selectively previews its decisions. Why worry that the actor playing the state is unstatesmanlike.
@zeynep2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rcalo @BostonJoan and
“anyway” isn’t a magic wand. Whatever you think of the board, though, the selective access game has done so much damage to journalism and has now crept into the academy. We can absolutely draw the line, as a group, and learn from the failures of access journalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @BostonJoan and
So it sounds like it’s the researchers and journalists who should refuse early or exclusive access? I think of embargoes, at least, as a way to help ensure the public gets a more thoughtful, nuanced analysis out of the gate. But I also see how access can drive perception
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I don’t mind embargoes if they are broadly offered. There are hundreds of people in this particular space.
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.