In this case it was simply not acceptable because the lives of colleagues were at stake.

doesn’t this imply rather clearly that if it were a not a colleague the “sacrifice of the policy” is acceptable? doesn’t THAT imply that MSM does indeed view itself as a special stratum of society?

yet another issue to parse in another post.

however, it is not the content that i’m trying to parse — i’m trying to understand the deliberate denial of content, based on selectively applied policies, as it were.

Unfortunately, because of the insatiable thirst to be first and outscoop everyone, that policy was sacrificed many times in the past by most media organizations. More often than not they got away with it. In this case it was simply not acceptable because the lives of colleagues were at stake.

This is why it seems that it has been less a policy than a suggestion, and why there seems to have been a policy shift.

“That to my mind was simply how the news group managed this story in the initial hours of the incident. The news group did not want to come up with an inaccurate report that would unduly alarm friends and family of the victims, as well as residents in the areas concerned, with a report that was neither confirmed nor clarified. That the stakes were higher—in terms of saving human life—to me seemed immaterial at this point because it’s the primary job of every professional journalist to prioritize accuracy over speed. That is the policy and not the other way around.
Unfortunately, because of the insatiable thrist to be first and outscoop everyone, that policy was sacrificed many times in the past by most media organizations. More often than not they got away with it. In this case it was simply not acceptable because the lives of colleagues were at stake.
Does this mean there is a double standard now for covering abductions of mediamen vs non mediamen? Absolutely not. Ces’ kidnapping actually only highlights how mediamen took previous kidnapping coverage’s for granted in the name of ratings and readership. Which is why what happened was not a policy shift—but a mere reminder of policy.”

an embargo is encouraged if there is no clear confrimation of the facts of the case. we do no want to sacrifice accuracy for speed in any situation.

and just to doubly reiterate—i speak individually. i do not speak for the company. let my bosses do that.