I doubt that I explained myself quite as well as I could have – I was talking about a genuine news rather than PR led bull shit.

@Nic – you're right… exclusives do screw up the Reg FD thing. Except not all news is NEWS and exclusives will not always affect a share price.

If MS announced Windows 10 and that it would be used on Apple and every mobile in the world – it's a big thing and it might go down badly with the regulatory bodies. Albeit, it would be picked up by other organisations, just a day (or a couple of hours later) – and it would.

If it says that it has used a new company to supply its water or electricity – then who would care.

A company is, in actuality, giving an exclusive if they are quoted in a feature. Does that mean that they should never say anything except in a legally approved press release? Where do you draw the line.

Or perhaps I'm missing the spirit of RegFD. For every exclusive (of a public listed company governed by the SEC) given to the WSJ that moves the market in any way shouldn't expect shareholder/investor lawsuits against those disclosing the information?

I would, and I have done it and I would do it again. I want the same respect that the WSJ or NYT or other news outlets get, and unless it's ESSENTIAL news, I will throw it back when PR approaches me the next day to do the story.

http://www.nickragone.com/home/2009/4/10/more-on-the-wsj-story.html (This is the second thing he wrote on it)

Here's the first:
http://www.nickragone.com/home/2009/4/7/wsj-no-longer-taking-embargoes.html

The Atlantic:
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/media_notes_the_end_of_embargoes.php

Rafat has some valuable new details, however.

If a journalist doesn't want to accept an embargo, he doesn't have to. There is no law written that a journalist is a PR's puppet and the only reasons he accepts the embargo in the first place is to:
a) get a bit more time to write the story
b) be kept on the list for potential future stories

It doesn't hurt a company if an embargo is broken, especially as they're sure to get follow up coverage from the blogs etc. these days.

If the story is good enough then it still will be written. What journalist in his right mind is going to turn down writing about something important, even if it's only online, just because it was written up a few hours before by the WSJ?

What's really changed?

Major media properties strive to exert their will on companies. The big-brand companies reciprocate with "take the embargo or join the proletarian when the announcement goes out."

And variations of the middle ground will continue to play out.

I've offered my take in more detail on
http://www.ishmaelscorner.com

Marshall, you know many companies shut out outlets from their news or launches based on a no-embargo policy. I'll be curious to see how it works for the Journal.