MSNBC said they knew this an hour ago. Why didn't they report it?

[Stinky The Clown]

If we were doing some covert operation and lives were in danger, okay, *maybe* the media stays quiet.

I seem to recall in the days of an actual news infrastructure in the US reporting news by actual journalists, they would REPORT shit, not do what they're told.

What a bunch of fucking worthless shitheads.

[spanone]

1. gregory just said he's dead

[Schema Thing]

2. give it a rest

[Stinky The Clown]

3. What does it do to hold back reporting this? Who does it help?

[Pisces]

4. What does it matter to know 1 hour earlier. The facts are still the same.

[Drale]

5. They seem like they are trying to stretch it out

increase the suspense.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. No. It was coordinated.

Every news organization announced it within minutes of the other. But MSNBC said they knew an hour earlier. That begs the question: Who said to sit on it?

[Incitatus]

15. Maybe that had reports, but it was unconfirmed.

To announce something like that they have to be %100. Why would they be informed by the necessary sources to go public an hour before any other news agencies?

[onenote]

6. if you think that the news media never held stories in the past

you grew up in a different world than I did.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Who said "never"?

I didn't.

[BlueCheese]

7. It is very strange for a news organization to withhold news.

[eShirl]

9. Actually no, it happens all the time.

[jp11]

13. Absolutely and there are numerous times when they choose not to cover or report on real news.

[BlueCheese]

18. What are some examples?

I know individual news organizations have withheld reporting on things that the government said would harm national security (the NYT report on wiretapping comes to mind). But what about news that's just news?

[eShirl]

21. here ya go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_embargo#Examples_of_embargoes

Examples of embargoes

Reporters who accompanied U.S. President George W. Bush on a Thanksgiving visit to Iraq in 2003 were embargoed from filing until the President left the country. They were told that, in the interests of security, the trip would be canceled if news broke before its conclusion.<1>

The Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom informed a handful of journalism outlets that Prince Harry would be serving in Afghanistan, on condition that the information not be released until the end of his deployment. The information was leaked after about two months, and officials agreed to end the embargo. The prince was immediately removed from the battlefield, reportedly for his safety and that of his fellow soldiers.

In Canada, Australia and other countries, prior to the release of the budget and other important government announcements, reporters are held in a "lockup" so that they can prepare stories in advance. They are not permitted to file until after the official announcement (for example, after the Minister of Finance rises to deliver the budget speech.) Lockups are particularly aimed at preventing insider trading on the basis of leaked government announcements.<2><3> A similar lockup is done in the United States when the Federal Reserve Board is preparing to adjust an interest rate.

-snip (to conform to DU's 3 paragraph Fair Use rule)-

[BlueCheese]

23. Like I said...

The first and second examples deal with endangering national security.

The last is more like holding poll numbers until the polls close, in order not to influence an election. But this is general news of wide interest where there would be no harm if it was reported early.

[EFerrari]

10. They're more like the Rockettes than like news organizations.

[bobbolink]

16. Keep those legs up, girls!

[Kurovski]

25. LOL.

Funny and awful at the same time.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Very true

[shireen]

11. easy to explain ....

it a huge major story. They needed time to get their star correspondents in to the studio on a Sunday night. Need to bring in the 'expert' talking heads.

It's showbiz, not news.

:(

[LoZoccolo]

12. Why don't you call them and ask them?

[dems_rightnow]

17. Tryinjg to let the White House announce it

When the WH couldn't get their announcement setup fast enough, people started running with it.

[Nevernose]

19. Courtesy to the Office of the President

Since it's not life-threatening, there's really no harm or foul in letting the President be the one to announce this. If he hadn't had to brief congress first, he would have been the first. Sorry if some people got their shows interrupted.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fishwax]

24. nah, that kind of thing has always happened

Sources often ask reporters to hold information, and reporters often do because a good relationship with sources can make for better sources. That doesn't mean that the reporter would always hold such information, but I don't think it's that uncommon, and it's definitely not new.