If there's one thing you can learn while working as a journalist (or just playing one on your blog), it's that information is everywhere. Tons of it. Company performance information, mergers & acquisition rumors, hirings and firings, new products-to-be, and much more. The important thing is knowing what to pursue, and what not to - and how. On occasion, information comes on a silver platter, as a news release from a company or a hot tip from a source. Those need investigation, but sometimes go out with a little less digging than a story would like to have included because of the time factor. Sometimes, the silver platter press release or tip comes with a caveat - an embargo. Sometimes you have a few hours, sometimes a few days, it all varies. Experiences with embargoes vary - sometimes companies just wildly send out press releases to every editor on their press list, saying "don't publish this till Monday," or something along those lines. If a company or PR rep is smart, s/he will make some sort of contact with a journalist / editor and discuss the embargo along with the tip, and work out getting an interview or other information over to the journalist in a timely manner. It's fairly commonplace, and is typically something a publication will agree to, even though one or more other publications may have made similar deals. A time or date is set, and everyone is on "the same playing field," so to speak.

Back in December of 2004, Wired News' Adam Penenberg made the case for ditching embargoes altogether, calling it "a shame" that publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, along with the Associated Press "continue to toe the line." Well, what if those news organizations were to not agree with embargoes - better yet, what if one of them broke an embargo?

That seems to be the case this week, with the Times publishing Katharine Seelye's article, "Newspaper Giants Buy Web News Monitor," on Tuesday night. This story was embargoed until midnight Eastern, multiple sources have confirmed, but the story hit the wire first out of the NYT's gates, sometime between 11 and 11:30p.m. Consultant / blogger Susan Mernit quickly responded with the post she had written on the subject shortly afterward. Mernit had been privy to the information before the midnight timeframe and had agreed to follow the embargo. Other publications, including the Journal and PaidContent (which was not under embargo) published stories on the topic as well. Once the dam was broken, the water began to flow - a lot.

This begs the question - what's the point of embargoing a story or information if a publication is going to break it. A little over a month ago, MarketWatch's Frank Barnako called out bloggers for not being able to "keep a secret." But it's obviously not just bloggers who can't keep a secret - or can they? It appears that there were many a blogger who had access to the Topix.net acquisition information, with a few of them having interviewed Topix staff and done a little bit of research that afternoon as the time ticked closer to midnight. So why the free pass? Good question. And what happens next?

Last October, Rebecca Lieb wrote an item at ClickZ about embargoes, and how they should be handled. She even includes suggestions of what should be done if one is broken.

If a publication breaks an embargo, PR must act swiftly and punitively against the outlet that broke it. Strike it from the list of media accorded priority access. But don't come down on any of the subsequent torrent of publications that immediately rush to get their story up on the embargoed topic. It's already out there. We've seen it on RSS feeds, gotten frantic IMs and e-mail messages. PRs must discipline the perpetrator, not the other victims.

But would this ever happen to the vaunted New York Times? I'm guessing someone gave a call to the publication in this case, but it's obviously unexpected that it will be left off of anyone's "invite" list for stories going forward. But should it be? Penenberg clarified the reality behind embargoes today, stating that their use "levels the playing field, otherwise, the thinking goes, The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times would have every scoop handed to them." Which is more or less what happened here. The Times got recognition for being first to the dance, when meanwhile it was supposed to be playing along with everyone else.

A quick search in Google yields a stack of results about broken embargoes. L.A. Observed had an item from back in September of 2003 where recently departed Newsday staffer Laurie Garrett complained that the Times had been guilty of doing just this. The Sunday Herald has a story about a broken embargo by the London Evening Standard, which appeared to be trying to beat the rush to a story.

So why now, on this story? A request to the Times corporate communications department about the paper's 'policy' on embargoed stories has not been responded to as of this time, so is unclear as to the official reason for this action. That said, what about the easy explanations? Well, is it possible that since the people on the print side of the publication had access to Seelye's story for deadline reasons that the folks on the online side were "accidentally" given the article or made it live prematurely. But it's safe to assume that the Times is technically unable to place a story online at midnight exactly, right? Additionally, Topix VP of Marketing Chris Tolles clarified that the Associated Press discussed just this situation, and made it very clear that the print side would have the story early in order to make all deadlines, and the online side received it whenever it was necessary to reach the Internet in a timely manner.

These days, the bloggers who are receiving sensitive information that may or may not be under embargo are generally pretty smart about handling it with care. Most bloggers are happy to be considered a media source at all, and the ones who have journalism experience are even better off. When asked about embargoed stories, one prominent sports blogger told The Media Drop: "From my business experience, my word is my bond. If somebody comes to me and asks me to respect an embargo in exchange for access to information, I'll always respect it. Otherwise I'm dead. On the other hand, if someone sends me something blind, I don't believe I'm under any requirement to respect it. Do that, and you take your chances."

For argument's sake, let's just say that the former situation is what happened here. If a few publications and bloggers were able to keep the cat in the bag for that long, why did it work out the way it did?

Hammock Publishing president and blogger Rex Hammock believes there are times when an embargo is worthwhile and should be respected. "As someone who spent a few years early in my career as a press secretary for a U.S. congressman and then in a PR firm, I know there were times when I would work with a reporter on a specific story for an extended period before the story was published. Sometimes those were stories being pitched by me and other times, in response to a reporter working on a project. And, in those cases, I think the concept of an "embargo" on me discussing it with others was appropriate." Hammock does agree that "broadcast" press releases that a company is expecting to be kept quiet is "an anachronistic concept." He cites the early release of exit poll numbers during 2004's presidential election as being an example of "a disservice" being done by a media outlet (or outlets), and one that has had a residual effect on his reading of those who published the data.

Advertising blogger Steve Hall, who mans Adrants.com, keeps it simple when asked of his opinion on embargoes in general, stating that "Just like our parents taught us, if a promise is made, a promise should be kept. If an embargo can't be honored, don't lie and say it will be just to get the story. It's not honest. It's not right." Obviously the input of three bloggers isn't meant to defeat Barnako's - or anyone else's - contention that the collective group of them could keep information confidential in the same manner as a professional journalist would, but to serve as an example that there are many a cool head among the group.

Professionally, my day job allows me to work on the other side of the embargo wall. But I'm not a professional journalist (I just play one on some blogs), so I thought it would be worthwhile to get some background on their use and perception. They're not loved by everyone, but most people understand when they're used. A veteran broadcast journalist told me that they do serve a purpose, and that as long as they are in use they should be taken seriously. When a major news organization bypasses one, they should be treated the same way that a smaller one or individual who leaked the information is. Which leads back to the question above: Who's going to stand up to the Times? The reasons for a publication like this going forward with a story before it should be hitting the wire is simple - getting the scoop. The playing field had been leveled, but that doesn't matter -- because the pub is what it is, and no one is going to say otherwise. This intrepid writer believes that while the Times obviously holds a special place in the hearts of many, that doesn't mean that a company absolutely has to have a story in its pages or gracing its website for the news to make it across the vast readership out there. Perhaps that's heresy to say, but it's a chance worth taking.