Busting the Embargo-Busters: NY Times’ Sam Sifton Explains What Happened UPDATED

Peter Dobrin, Philadelphia Inquirer's culture writer

I was steamed when Robin Pogrebin's NY Times story broke the news embargo I'd agreed to (regarding the Brodsky Bill), and now Peter Dobrin of the Philadelphia Inquirer is steamed about a similar run-in with the same newspaper's Carol Vogel, regarding the announcement of Timothy Rub's appointment to the directorship of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Dobrin is SO steamed, in fact, that he sent me the following note, for quotation and attribution:

What happened was this: The Inquirer and Times agreed to the embargo. Later the [Cleveland] Plain Dealer was brought into it. We all agreed to 12:30 a.m. Monday publication. I had warned the museum's PR person that sometimes the Times rolls out news in a kind of stealth way---that is, it is not on the online layout, but you can find it if you search for it and, of course, if you have Google News Alert, the alert will link you to the item.

He [the museum's PR person] got an assurance from the Times this would not happen. So at about 7 p.m. the museum's PR person called to say the Times had published the story. We had our story up about 10 minutes later; the Plain Dealer, maybe a 45 minutes after that.

The story was not appearing on the Times layout at any point last night as far as I can tell. But what happened was exactly what the Times said would not---that Google News Alert linked to it, and anyone who looked for the story could find it.

I'd call that violating the embargo, and I think the Times would have a hard time arguing otherwise.

So what DOES the Times argue? Let's find out. Here's what cultural news editor Sam (Get-it-First) Sifton told me in an e-mail responding to my query:

We're a big organization, with multiple publishing systems for print and digital, and we need to work hard to make sure everyone on each side is talking to the right people on the other, particular in the case of "embargoed" information. You'll note the quote marks. I don't have anything in particular against embargoes except that I'd prefer not to have them.

When we do have them, I'd prefer that they not be tied to morning publication in the newspaper. Here's why: The newspaper is printed at night, and as the finished files for the newspaper are shipped to the printing plant they are also shipped to the digital newsroom, where they are published rather faster than they are at the plant. If someone misses a flag on the file and posts to the Web, I'm stuck explaining myself to the blogosphere. No fun.

I thank you for flagging it.

I wonder if the Times is a little more careful in instances where the Office of the President demands an embargo. In any event, I do agree with Sam about preferring not to have these encumbrances: In my experience, embargoes are almost always broken.

My solution? Give us the news we can use (right now) and let the "scoops" fall where they may. Speed of publication isn't everything, after all. Accuracy and substance are. (Just compare my two-part coverage with Robin's piece.)

No matter how speedy I am, though, I couldn't teleport myself to the Philadelphia press conference called yesterday to introduce the newly named director. In keeping with the bizarre and inopportunely timed nature of the roll-out of this important museum news (on the same weekend when Rub's current museum, the Cleveland Museum of Art, was opening its new wing), the Philadelphia Museum's invitation for its 10:30 a.m. event hit my inbox yesterday at 1:59 a.m.

Even the blogger-who-never-sleeps sometimes gets caught napping in the wee hours!

UPDATES: Dobrin takes issue with my description of his mood: "It's a small point, but I wasn't 'steamed.' 'Slightly annoyed' is probably a better way of putting it. But it is hard to tell emotion in an e-mail!"

And Steve Litt, who wrote the article about Rub's imminent departure for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, takes issue with Dobrin's account of the relative timing of their pieces: "Philadelphia posted at 7:02 p.m. Sunday. We followed at 7:18."