media embargo art
Britt Cudaback, Gov. Tony Evers’ communications director, sent out a media advisory Feb. 18 noting that the governor planned to “act on Senate Bill 488” at a ceremony the following day in Madison at 9 a.m., and that he would “host events in Hudson and Superior” after that.
The advisory left it ambiguous whether the governor was planning to sign or veto the bill that creates new legislative districts for the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate. “FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, EMBARGOED UNTIL EVENT START,” was noted in bold caps at the top of the advisory.
Later that night, Cudaback emailed members of the media to say that it had come to her attention that the details of the advisory “were both published by members of the press and forwarded by members of the press to individuals and parties who are not members of the press.”
She spelled out her understanding of the embargo: “Our office shares media advisories exclusively with members of the press — sometimes with advanced notice, as here — as a courtesy for you and your outlet to plan and make arrangements to cover the governor’s events and travel,” she wrote.
Cudaback added: “It is our expectation that members of the press and respective outlets do not otherwise publish, distribute, or otherwise seek reaction to our media advisories, which we provide as a courtesy to members of the press, including the Capitol press corps.
“We wanted to make this expectation explicitly clear,” she admonished. “Should we determine members of the press are violating these longstanding terms of our media advisories, you and your outlet may forfeit receiving future media advisories from our office.”
Certainly embargoed information is not to be published before the embargo period has lapsed. And sharing an embargoed media advisory with non-press folks is another no-no.
But as a longtime reporter and editor I was surprised by a couple of things. Being able to plan for a press event is certainly appreciated, particularly as media organizations are increasingly strapped for staff and resources. But I’ve never thought of a media advisory strictly as a “courtesy” — more a mutually beneficial proposition since those on the other end are seeking coverage of their issues. I would like to think that we also share a common goal, which is to deliver important information to the public.
The piece that really threw me, however, was the expectation that reporters not “seek reaction to our media advisories.” I asked several longtime Wisconsin reporters whether this was their understanding.
One put it this way: “If I get an announcement on Monday, I’m going to prepare 20 inches of [material] so that when the governor appears on Tuesday it’s a matter of me hitting send.”
Another said: “I would not assume I would not do any reporting ahead of time.” The only exception, the reporter added, would be if the communications staffer called to explicitly lay out those conditions.
Cudaback declined a phone interview, requesting emailed questions. She says her office makes a distinction between press releases — containing information and announcements distributed to members of the press and public — and media advisories — containing “specific details about the governor’s whereabouts and travel schedule” and distributed solely to members of the press.
She says the purpose of sharing media advisories under embargo “is to ensure members of the press have sufficient time to arrange their own personal schedule, assign, plan, or pre-write news coverage, allocate staff resources, make travel arrangements, and so forth.”
But when I asked specifically whether her expectation was that reporters not reach out to sources before the embargo deadline, it got murky.
“As our media advisories contain specific details about the governor’s whereabouts and travel and are distributed exclusively to members of the press, we trust members of the press will not publish or share those details with parties who are not members of the press and will not otherwise publish, distribute, or otherwise seek reaction to our media advisories,” she wrote, seeming to indicate that safety concerns are a factor. “This expectation neither discourages nor prevents reporters or news outlets from reaching out to sources.”
Seeking reaction and reaching out to sources sound like the same thing to me. I asked Cudaback for clarification but she did not respond.
“Embargoes have historically been about giving reporters a head start so they can make the story as good as possible before publication,” says Sue Robinson, a former reporter who is now a journalism professor at UW-Madison. “When you have a head start — and that includes getting quotes and collecting background info, putting together a story a day ahead of the actual event — that is going to benefit everybody involved because the story will be that much better.
“I do think an embargo means you can’t post about it,” Robinson adds or “give it to another news outlet.”
Cudaback declined to name who published the media advisory early or shared it outside of media circles. What is and is not a legitimate news outlet has been an issue during Evers’ tenure. A few years back, the governor was sued by the MacIver Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. It alleged that the governor violated its staffers’ constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of the press and equal access by not inviting its reporters to press briefings and not including them in the office’s press distribution list.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson ruled against MacIver in March 2020. “Evers has reasonably concluded that MacIver is not a bona fide news organization,” he wrote. “MacIver publicly brands itself as a think tank committed to ideological principles. It engages in policy-driven political advocacy, including advocating for specific initiatives and policy approaches. It has a ‘news’ tab on its website, but it does not maintain a news-gathering organization separate from its overall ideological mission.”
A federal appeals court upheld Peterson’s ruling in April 2021.
Robinson notes that there are a lot of players in Wisconsin who engage in what scholar Thorsten Quandt calls “dark participation;” this includes trolling social media accounts, comment sections and publishing stories.
“Their goal is to spread misinformation and chaos,” she says. Our public sphere, she adds, is floundering due to this very intentional misinformation. “Everybody is distrusting everybody and nobody is believing any information.”
Robinson focuses her research on the issue of trust and works as a consultant with newsrooms around the country with the intent to rebuild trust in journalism. Her most recent book is How Journalists Engage: A Theory of Trust Building, Identities, and Care. She says we are at a moment of a “peak paradigm shift because journalists are losing relevance.” Communications people, she adds, are likely sensing that.
But, she adds, “I would hope that they want journalists to remain relevant. And I would argue that with the polarization we have today, it is imperative for people on both sides — journalists, communications staff — to work together in a way that is super transparent.”
It’s never a bad idea for reporters and communications staff to revisit their relationships and explain why they do what they do. One longtime reporter, for instance, was surprised to hear that safety might be a factor driving the use of media embargoes out of the governor’s office. “That is new,” the reporter says, “and I’ve never heard her explain it that way.”
The reporter questions the increased use of embargoes in general: “Everybody is embargoing everything for no reason. I think it has gotten completely out of control.”
Perhaps most important, the process seems to be missing an important step, the reporter adds. “I’ve always thought it has to be a conversation and that reporters agree to it."
That's the way it should be, says Robinson. “There is a negotiation that should always happen.”
