Facebook
Linkedin
RSS Feed
Twitter
YouTube
The New Yorker Breaks Embargo and Violates Ethics
I love The New Yorker. It’s one of maybe five magazines I still subscribe to the print edition.
I love when it arrives because it means a good two hours of solitude while I absorb every article in the month’s edition.
But I’m mad at them right now.
They ran a movie review of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” a week before the embargo date.
First of all, if you haven’t read the Millenium series (Dragon Tattoo is the first), please go do that now. In fact, don’t come back to Spin Sucks until you’ve read them all.
It’s OK. We’ll wait. You won’t be able to put them down and you’ll be back here before Christmas.
Back to The New Yorker.
Why am I mad at them for breaking the embargo, you ask? This happens all the time these days, you say.
It is because there was a Los Angeles screening of the movie (which isn’t out until Dec.21 and I might actually die before then) and, a condition of the RSVP and attendance, was to agree to honor the December 13 embargo date.
Well, critic David Denby agreed to that condition yet ran the review yesterday.
Scott Rudin, the movie’s producer, threw a hissy fit. Understandably so. And he asked Denvy, via email, why he did this.
The beauty of email is the exchange is now available for all of us to read.
Here it is, as reported by TheWrap:
Denby argues that the system of releasing a glut of serious films at the end of the year is “destructive”; that the New Yorker didn’t want to run a series of “tiny” reviews at Christmas, and didn’t want to delay more substantial reviews of some serious films until mid-January; and that faced with the dilemma of what to put in the December 5 issue, they opted to break the embargo and go with “Dragon Tattoo,” which Denby liked, instead of “‘We Bought the Zoo,’ or whatever it’s called,” which he implied that he didn’t.
Denby then apologized for the breach, calling it “a special case brought on by year-end madness” that wouldn’t happen again. And in a halfhearted attempt to curry favor, he congratulated Rudin on making a good movie and said he looked forward to seeing the Rudin-produced “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.”
Rudin’s reply cut right to the point: “Your seeing the movie was conditional on your honoring the embargo, which you agreed to do. The needs of the magazine cannot trump your word … I’m really not interested in why you did this except that you did – and you must at least own that, purely and simply, you broke your word to us and that is a deeply lousy and immoral thing to have done.”
Rudin also suggested that Denby would not be invited to “Extremely Loud” or any other Rudin film, and called the critic’s reasoning about “We Bought a Zoo” “nonsense.”
The thing that bothers me the most about this is if I were Rudin and Denby had come to me with The New Yorker “dilemma,” I would have either given the OK for them to run it, giving me the opportunity to do some damage control with the other media who attended the screening, or come up with a second solution that made us both happy.
There is nothing in this world that means more than your honor. As my mom always says, “Remember who you are and what you stand for.” And if you can’t stand for your ethics, what do you have?
P.S. The review was actually really good and I cannot wait to see the movie!
I watched all three movies a few weeks ago. Not the remakes, but the original foreign versions. They were brilliant. They are on Netflix streaming and I can't recommend them highly enough. I think breaking the embargo was wrong. I'd be mad at the New Yorker too.
My latest conversation: Henry Wood: Edge of Understanding Ch 72 pt 2
ExtremelyAvg I loved the Swedish versions. They were almost identical to what I imagined in my head when I read the books. I know Hollywood won't be the same, but I'm going to see them anyway.
My latest conversation: Five Tips for Preparing for 2012
ginidietrich I will likely watch the U.S. version, too. I like the actors they've chosen.
My latest conversation: Henry Wood: Edge of Understanding Ch 72 pt 2
Thanks for posting ginidietrich . As rachaelseda mentioned below, I really can't believe he ran the article with such a lame excuse. The fact that the review is irrelevant for me and I don't blame the director. Your word is your bond- simple as that. Cheers, Jamie
JGarant I seriously don't get it. If you want to do a full-fledged review, instead of including it in the edition with all the other holiday movies, call the producer and ask. You know the producer had to go public so the other critics didn't think he was playing favorites. People.
My latest conversation: Five Tips for Preparing for 2012
Yes your word is important and it says a lot about who you are. I cannot believe he actually ran the article, after all what did he think was going to happen? I wouldn't invite him to another film either and I'm sure others will take note as well.
rachaelseda I kind of hope Hollywood rallies and no one invites him to their screenings.
My latest conversation: Gin and Topics: Playboy, Siri, and a 666 Sticker
I understand Gini. It's a lousy thing to do. But did I tell you that I saw Daniel Craig filming this on Södermalm? He looked cold and younger in real life than on the screen.
The Swedish media are also running pieces on the film but I won't spoil it for you.
My latest conversation: Understanding Content Marketing: Sharon Hurley Hall Interview
jonbuscall Is he handsome in real life??
My latest conversation: Five Ways to Be Productive While Unemployed
Hi ginidietrich ! OK, I have to be honest, I sympathize with Denby and his editors. As a movie critic myself, the end of the year is an awesome and frustrating time for all of us. We get all these screenings and DVDs to watch in a 3-week span and then have to vote in awards for our respective organizations. (Mine are the Broadcast Film Critics Assoc. and KC Film Critics Circle.) This is much to the benefit of the studio marketing because any awards that are given in advance of the Oscars to their films helps them ramp up publicity and gives them momentum.
What stinks is that -- especially in a market like KC -- there are embargoes all over the place. I have deadlines to meet to have movie reviews done each weekend, but for the last two weekends, I have no new content for the TV station, blog, podcast, and radio outlet I contribute to because of all the press embargoes. Next week, I'll have 3 more movies I can write about, and about 17-20 the week after, but for 2 weeks I've been stuffing my face with the studios' "award-worthy" movies and not been able to write about them.
Does any of this preclude the fact that Denby broke his word? No. But I hope you see why he and the New Yorker felt backed into a corner. It's a stupid Catch-22 of the industry: "We want you to see all these movies before this deadline, so we can use your awards in our marketing, but you can't review them until we say you can." Essentially, it asks us to put our readership on hold. It's worse for a guy who lives in a secondary market like KC because everyone on the Internet has reviewed a movie before it finally comes to KC and I get to. The Map Overlay in Google Analytics shows that Los Angeles is the biggest city my website gets traffic from, but I have to abide by KC embargoes? That's BS.
Anyway, embargoes are evil and they are the last-ditch effort for studios to trying to keep the playing field uneven for content creators. It's an antiquated practice and it won't last.
Sidenote: I am the marketing mgr for spiral16 but my reviews appear on Scene-Stealers.com, which is who I'm writing this comment on behalf of.
SceneStealrEric I actually agree with you that embargoes are evil. The issue i have with this is that Denby agreed to hold the story in order to see the movie. If he couldn't do that he either should have declined the invitation (which we know wouldn't happen) or negotiated some sort of exclusive.
As a PR professional, I am ALWAYS open to working with reporters on their needs, in order to meet their deadlines. I think all he had to do was ask.
I totally get WHY he did it. I just don't think it's ethical.
My latest conversation: Five Ways to Be Productive While Unemployed
This is a great story that makes one really examine who they are and what they value. I completely agree with you, Gini. If the dilemma was true, I too, would have approached Rudin. Once your word loses meaning, you have nothing left. Embargoed means embargoed. No exception.
WordsDoneWrite It's not even so much the embargo to me. I know they're broken all the time (cough, TechCrunch, cough). What bothers me is he agreed to the embargo in order to see the movie. So he gave his word that he wouldn't publish a review until Dec. 13. And then he did. You're right...your word is your word. Until it's not.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
Reporters can give their word...but then there's editors and publishers who could care less and can push hard. How do I ensure reporters respect an embargo - even the ones I've known for ages? They have to sign a document stating neither they, nor their, paper and all its media extensions, will break the embargo. In my 20+ years of dealing with top reporters at the biggest media outlets, has anyone who has signed a Statement of Embargo and Confidentiality ever broken an embargo.
ginidietrich Oh, I hear ya. It's like, "I'll give you this piece of candy if you give me your colored markers." Then you take the markers and you eat the candy! A somewhat elementary example, but even in the schoolyard kids know you don't eat the candy ;-)
I'd really have to see that Remnick knew about this agreed to go-ahead with the review. Just doesn't sound like him - at all.
HerzogIND The whole thing definitely was discussed in an editorial meeting. Whether or not Remnick was in that meeting isn't known, but someone above Denby was.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
Hmm. I have a couple of thoughts on this one.
First, I think in an age where CEOs are stuffing as much money as they can in their pockets before the house caves in we should all be doing a little more to honor our word.
I was most intrigued by the string of comments around megfowler - I read the link and I think this guy sounds like a real piece of work. I'd hate to work for him - I'd probably throw something back at him as I'm telling him where to shove that Golden Globe of his... but that's beside the point. While there is always another side to every story, I would like to throw this hypothetical out there.
If Rudin made a deal with a publication to allow them to have the first published review, but then decided to go with another publication because he got more $, would get more readers, or the president of publication #1 was a real jerk - would that be okay? I think that we would be even more harsh on Rudin given what we know about him. I don't think it's ever okay to "stick it" to someone just because you don't like the guy.
On a side note, I have never read Dragon Tattoo but my husband tells me I am required to go with him to see the movie or else we are getting a divorce. He's passionate like that. (Totally kidding)
Maranda I don't know what's going on between these two guys. All I know is if I invited you to my movie screening and you, on your honor, said you wouldn't publish a review on Dec. 13. I made you promise you wouldn't before you saw the movie. And you pinky swore. Then, on Dec. 5, you decided to go ahead and publish the review because you were getting pressure from your boss. Wouldn't you have the courtesy to at least call me and tell me?
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
ginidietrich Personally, I wouldn't tell my boss yes, we can run it early until I had cleared it with you. And I would hope that my boss would understand when I explain that while I understood his time constraints, running the story without your okay will probably cause issues when it comes to getting invited to future events. Furthermore, Denby might face some sort of black list from other directors who would be worries about an embargo being broken.
Maranda EXACTLY! That's the issue I have with it. You agree to an embargo so you can see the movie. They held up their end of the deal. You need to hold up yours.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
There's a Swedish version of the movie with subtitles that's about 5-6 years old. It was good, but predictably "Swedish."
rustyspeidel Sigh...please scroll down.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
I've tried four times to get through the first book. Dang it; banned from Spin Sucks until I try again.
Soulati | PR Start on page 150. Then you can come back.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
It's one thing to be late with a blog post you promised to a beautiful peer, just because life got super-crazy all of a sudden in a way that your friend is totally happy for you about and forgives you for so much that she featured you on her site anyway because she is tots awesum. (See what I did there?)
It's quite another to flat out lie. Seriously, how did we get to a world where honor means so very little anymore, so little that you can't give another professional the courtesy of a heads-up. Once upon a time there was even this incredible thing called JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY. I think I'm finally old enough to say "I weep for our future."
My latest conversation: "How do you get any work done with all your twuttering?"
Tinu David Denby is 68, so maybe you're actually weeping for the past. :) But I would argue that these kinds of dustups are nothing new, and have been happening since papers and magazines were being printed -- someone is always scooping or scamming or pushing or exaggerating or creating havoc. That's part of why the industry is such a fascinating one to watch, even as it makes us cringe at times.I think journalistic integrity is alive and well with many reporters and editors, just as it always has been -- but there are also rats in the works, as there always have been. However, the world a theatre critic lived in 100 years ago is very different than the one Denby and Rudin live in now. We're more likely to "read all about it" now when something happened back then. There are also a lot more ways to mess up now. :)I'm not one to harken back to the old days of much, though -- I'd be talking to you from my spot barefoot in a kitchen back in the old days (although that sounds appealing right now....:)
Most of my comments are at least a little tongue in cheek.
And for sure it's nothing NEW in this instance. I'm sure it seems that way because there's a new level of visibility.
But when I say "journalistic integrity", I'm not saying I believe it's totally dead, or even talking specifically about this story, today. I'm saying that there was a time that news was not seen as a profit center, as recently as 30 years ago. Yes, they still had to sell newspapers and fill commercial time slots. But not at the expense of an attempt at truth. I'm sure they still screwed it up all the time - seen that up close.
But in the past three decades, the emphasis on profits became more important than Everything. And that's the thing I'd like to see go back to the way it was. I jokingly harken back to days of yore and yearn for elements of days past, but I'm certainly not interested in going back to the stone age. I just would like to see some of the values of good journalism remain intact as we move toward the future. And with the news as a money machine rather than an information unit, it seems ironic that the very thing that they're pursing is the thing killing it, and fueling things like citizen journalism as competition. Or our growing reliance on social media tools like blogs and Twitter for the raw data that becomes the news.
megfowler
My latest conversation: "How do you get any work done with all your twuttering?"
Tinu LMAO!!!! It's OK...it took me two weeks longer than I said to get my guest post to you.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
I totally get Rudin's anger and frustration. Now he has to go to all of the other ethical reporters and tell them why they were scooped by the New Yorker. This reporter has ruined his reputation and I think he is going to miss out on future engagements because of this.
On another note, I'm super excited for this movie as well. I loved the books and hope the American version does the books justice. I saw the Swedish version of Dragon Tattoo and barely blinked for the entire movie. It was that good.
Anthony_Rodriguez I think that's why he was so public about his outrage - so the other journalists would know the New Yorker wasn't given an exclusive.
I loved the Swedish version, too. I doubt our versions will be as good as those, but it's Hollywood so we'll be entertained.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
You know, as I was reading your post, I thought, "Why didn't Denby just tell Rudin the review was going to run early?" However, as pissed as Rudin might be, I doubt very much that come his other films, he'll risk not inviting the New Yorker. This was a pretty sucky thing for the NYer to do. Lack of content is hardly Rudin's fault.
And I'm with you on the books. I could not put them down. It was Harry Potter all over again.
My latest conversation: Letter From Jamaica
Shonali Have you read Hunger Games?
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
ginidietrich No, I haven't. Should I? A friend just loaned me the "Game of Thrones" set, so I'm planning to dig into those soon...
My latest conversation: Letter From Jamaica
Shonali Yes, you should! SO. GOOD.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
ginidietrich OK, then!
My latest conversation: Letter From Jamaica
Shonaliginidietrich Game of Thrones- love that book and the rest of the series for that matter.
My latest conversation: A Letter To The Universe
It's disappointing behavior on the part of the New Yorker but I wonder how many of their readers are going to discontinue reading it on account of their actions. I'm not excusing Denby's choice but I wonder if he felt he could 'get away with it' because readers would continue to purchase the New Yorker (which is a great magazine!).
Collectual Sure, they'll continue to purchase. They may not even hear about this. But the magazine will be hurt when their critic is no longer invited to screenings of movies and has to wait until it comes out like the rest of us.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
ginidietrichCollectual I'm not sure anyone will stop reading the New Yorker or giving them access to scoops solely because of this, but it will have an effect. No one likes to do business with or have a relationship of any kind with someone who can't be trusted, and Denby just did serious damage to himself and the New Yorker. Forget the relationship with Rudin, he just made himself look like a dishonest, unethical person in front of a whole lot of potential readers and maybe even people who he may need on board in the future. Whether or not he's a stand-up person himself, I can see why Rudin was steamed. The underlying message seemed to be "I don't need you, and I can do whatever I want instead of actually communicating with honesty and integrity."
Not knowing personalities of the players involved, why not some business sense? If the New Yorker is sick of the glut of holiday movies and if movies are often made by the right buzz peaking at the right time, why NOT negotiate an exclusive release pre-embargo to scoop others? Esp. if the word of your critic is so strong, wouldn't that also serve to market your publication? cc HowieSPM KenMueller The NY is making their own biz issues someone else's problem, which I think I've seen that before. This is bad form and unethical. That said, i wouldn't be surprised of megfowler is right, this is 'forgotten' next preview time.
FWIW, no I haven't read the books; they've been wait listed at my Kindle e-library. And I will probably see the movie as my sisters also like to look at Daniel Craig.
A number of years ago I worked for several publications in which the published actively pushed us to ignore embargoes so that we could "scoop" everyone else.
It was very frustrating because we worked in an "at will" environment and it was understood that if you didn't follow instructions your "at will" would be over.
My latest conversation: A Letter To The Universe
TheJackB In our world, the embargo was dead when TechCrunch decided they wouldn't honor them any longer. His philosophy was always, "If I get it wrong, but I'm first to the story, I'll revise the story later" So I get it. But this wasn't a scoop. And a condition of attending the screening was to honor the embargo. That's just going against your word.
Gini, I agree with your overall premise, and yes Denby broke his word re: the embargo, and did a lame job trying to cover his ass.
However, I feel like the whole idea of an embargo in this 27/7 media cycle is just "old school" in a big way. Sure, after 15 years in PR, I know the reasoning behind embargoes. (And maybe I'm just reacting from all the headaches of enforcing embargoes).
I think we should reconsider the media blitz approach where all the stories appear within a 24 hour period. Wouldn't it work better if stories trickled along and you ended up having 3 weeks of reviews and coverage vs. one weekend of reviews or even one Friday morning of reviews?
24/7 - not 27/7
Jeff_Rutherford I agree with you on the embargo and we hardly ever do them anymore. But the point really isn't the embargo and more that a condition of getting to see the movie early was to honor the request that they wait until the 13th to write anything. It's not honest or ethical.
ginidietrichSean McGinnis No it is from the Gumby Speaks book.
Sean McGinnis You could have lied to me and said it was your dad's.
My latest conversation: Does Big Box Fear Your Content?
[...] The New Yorker Breaks Embargo and Violates Ethics (Spin [...]
[...] What happens when a media outlet breaks an embargo early? Depending on the strength of the news source, there can be serious consequences. Reporters have been blacklisted and their privileges of receiving advance information revoked. There was also the recent embargo break by The New Yorker’s movie reviewer David Denby. [...]