Vatican bans La Repubblica journalist from traveling with pope

[gilliam]

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican has banned an Italian journalist from the papal plane during Pope Francis’ trip to the United States as punishment for his newspaper’s role in breaching the embargo on the pontiff’s hotly anticipated encyclical.

While dozens of journalists will board the papal plane this September for Francis’ first official visit to Cuba and the United States, longtime Vatican correspondent Marco Ansaldo will be forced to seek an alternative route. Ansaldo’s application to travel with the pope was rejected because his newspaper company broke the embargo.

La Repubblica, a top left-leaning daily, came under criticism from the Vatican last month when its media conglomerate, L’Espresso, published an advance copy of the pope’s environmental encyclical.

The Vatican was swift in banning the L’Espresso journalist responsible for the leak, Sandro Magister, from the Vatican press office indefinitely.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/07/26/vatican-bans-la-repubblica-journalist-from-traveling-with-pope/

 

[ringil]

I believe this is a good move by the Vatican.

 

[Pulvis]

Well i realize that the church is not a republic with freedom of speech gaurenteed, but banning reporters is akin to blacklisting those who you do not like. Sets a bad president. Kinda like Hilary Clinton only granting interviews to those who will only ask softball questions. Or Nixon blacklisting certain reporters. If the Vatican Press office wishes to keep something secret, or wishes to control the release of information, they need to keep said information on the shelf until they are ready for it to go public.

 

[tvknight415]

As a former news reporter, let me shed a small light on how things work in the newsroom…

Reporters are frequently given ‘advance’ copies of press releases, reports, etc., with an embargo date/time. If I recall correctly, the weekly economics numbers (like unemployment) are actually given to the major news outlets 30 minutes to an hour prior to their ‘official’ release time. When the President of the US was going to be making a major policy announcement, we might get a couple hours notice. All stuff like this has the phrase “embargoed until (date/time)”. This allows them to prepare their stories, pull research, find commentators for live broadcasts, etc. This occurs on a regular basis, and is part of the business.

Watch CNN, or FOX, or MSNBC, right after the weekly economic numbers come out - the hosts and commentators are all well-read on the information, seemingly seconds after they are announced. They’re not reading a press release off a tablet as they go. They’ve had it for a little bit, digested, spun it, and when the official release time comes, are ready in front of the cameras to talk about it.

In return for receiving the advance information, news organizations are supposed to keep the information “in-house” until the date and time listed on the release. It is not to be published, broadcast, leaked from an “anonymous source”, or otherwise put out into the public early. Jumping the gun and releasing embargoed news information early is a big no-no. While there were no legal penalties that could be imposed per se, there was the understanding that violating the embargo would get one black-listed from receiving future embargoed information early. In the news business, this works like a sort of “gentleman’s agreement” with government agencies.

I see this punishment as both understandable and expected. If an advance copy of the encyclical with the phrase “Embargoed until (date/time)” was given to the paper, they had an unwritten obligation to keep it under wraps until such date and time. The reporter who published it, the editor who passed it along, and the newspaper that put it to ink, all violated the embargo, and thus are now suffering the consequences. This isn’t censorship of news about goings on at the Vatican. It wasn’t some scandal that was being expose and a reporter being cut out because of it. It was a news organization violating an industry honor code, and now paying the price for it.

La Repubblica, eat your humble pie, have some cheese with your whine, and maybe next time (IF you get a next time) a release comes from the Vatican News Office, and it says “embargoes until xxxx”, sit on it until such date and time as it’s supposed to go public.

 

[Memaw]

Well i realize that the church is not a republic with freedom of speech gaurenteed, but banning reporters is akin to blacklisting those who you do not like. Sets a bad president. Kinda like Hilary Clinton only granting interviews to those who will only ask softball questions. Or Nixon blacklisting certain reporters. If the Vatican Press office wishes to keep something secret, or wishes to control the release of information, they need to keep said information on the shelf until they are ready for it to go public.

If they do something that serious I agree they should loose the privilege of traveling with the Pope. Are we to now start telling the Vatican how to run it’s business. My how a little humility would go a loooong way. God Bless, Memaw

 

[phil19034]

As a former news reporter, let me shed a small light on how things work in the newsroom…

Reporters are frequently given ‘advance’ copies of press releases, reports, etc., with an embargo date/time. If I recall correctly, the weekly economics numbers (like unemployment) are actually given to the major news outlets 30 minutes to an hour prior to their ‘official’ release time. When the President of the US was going to be making a major policy announcement, we might get a couple hours notice. All stuff like this has the phrase “embargoed until (date/time)”. This allows them to prepare their stories, pull research, find commentators for live broadcasts, etc. This occurs on a regular basis, and is part of the business.

Watch CNN, or FOX, or MSNBC, right after the weekly economic numbers come out - the hosts and commentators are all well-read on the information, seemingly seconds after they are announced. They’re not reading a press release off a tablet as they go. They’ve had it for a little bit, digested, spun it, and when the official release time comes, are ready in front of the cameras to talk about it.

In return for receiving the advance information, news organizations are supposed to keep the information “in-house” until the date and time listed on the release. It is not to be published, broadcast, leaked from an “anonymous source”, or otherwise put out into the public early. Jumping the gun and releasing embargoed news information early is a big no-no. While there were no legal penalties that could be imposed per se, there was the understanding that violating the embargo would get one black-listed from receiving future embargoed information early. In the news business, this works like a sort of “gentleman’s agreement” with government agencies.

I see this punishment as both understandable and expected. If an advance copy of the encyclical with the phrase “Embargoed until (date/time)” was given to the paper, they had an unwritten obligation to keep it under wraps until such date and time. The reporter who published it, the editor who passed it along, and the newspaper that put it to ink, all violated the embargo, and thus are now suffering the consequences. This isn’t censorship of news about goings on at the Vatican. It wasn’t some scandal that was being expose and a reporter being cut out because of it. It was a news organization violating an industry honor code, and now paying the price for it.

La Repubblica, eat your humble pie, have some cheese with your whine, and maybe next time (IF you get a next time) a release comes from the Vatican News Office, and it says “embargoes until xxxx”, sit on it until such date and time as it’s supposed to go public.

Nice post, good info.

 

[ProVobis]

Might be better just to ban all non-Latin-language speakers.

 

[zz912]

I see this punishment as both understandable and expected. If an advance copy of the encyclical with the phrase “Embargoed until (date/time)” was given to the paper, they had an unwritten obligation to keep it under wraps until such date and time. The reporter who published it, the editor who passed it along, and the newspaper that put it to ink, all violated the embargo, and thus are now suffering the consequences. This isn’t censorship of news about goings on at the Vatican. It wasn’t some scandal that was being expose and a reporter being cut out because of it. It was a news organization violating an industry honor code, and now paying the price for it.

La Repubblica, eat your humble pie, have some cheese with your whine, and maybe next time (IF you get a next time) a release comes from the Vatican News Office, and it says “embargoes until xxxx”, sit on it until such date and time as it’s supposed to go public.

Agreed. The media wants to get info before something is released, then they have to keep it secret until the time it is to be released. They aren’t hiding something, just allowing the media to prep themselves so they can more accurately report on it when it is released.