The first sentence of Jeff Jarvis' post about the BBC's deal with YouTube
reminded me of something:
The embargo just came off a BBC announcement that they’re putting video on YouTube to reach more audience, worldwide.
It reminded me that I hate reading about "embargos coming off." What's the point of that sentence?
In my opinion, it makes bloggers look foolish. They've exchanged access for a one-sided view of a story and have posted without further analysis.
The second sentence is quite possibly worse than the first:
“YouTube is a key gateway through which to engage new audiences in the UK and abroad,” BBC Director-General Mark Thompson said in the release.
Jeff, you've regurgitated a press release!
The third sentence is another quote from the press release:
“It’s essential that the BBC embraces new ways of reaching wider audiences with non-exclusive partnerships such as these.”
Followed by Jarvis' analysis:
Smart, those Brits.
What a disappointment. Jarvis is capable of real analysis, which is why I subscribe to BuzzMachine.com
. Regurgitating press releases is lazy and a poor use of Jarvis' brain and his reader's time.
I don't subscribe to blogs to read press releases.
I don't subscribe to blogs to read about a blogger's access to embargoed information.
I subscribe to blogs to read blogger's own opinions and analysis.
It's quite possible that access to news under embargo destroys the objectivity of bloggers (and journalists in general). Could someone point me to a blog post that says something like, "the embargo just came off _______, and boy, was my early look at this product/service/company a disappointment." It doesn't happen, with the possible exception of news out of Microsoft.
Jeff, tell me something I don't already know. Give me your perspective on the news you've apparently had time to digest. That's the point.
End of rant.