In a thoughtful piece about Apple patents and disclosure, Dave Winer also makes some comments about embargos and the link to positive coverage. We've talked about embargos before, so my perspective on when they are/aren't appropriate are clear. The bigger issue is the assertion that there is a link between an embargo (or in this case, an exclusive) and positive coverage. I don't think there is. In the Apple case, John Markoff didn't shy away from asking about options, and Dave notes Steven Levy also asked some zingers. I can come up with lots of examples where we've given interviews and embargos to reporters and columnists we know aren't going to write glowing things -- and we do so because they routinely write about the topic to readers who care about it and historically have been accurate in their coverage. That's not a huge bar to jump over. In the case of limited briefing time, we optimize for broadest possible impact to the audience. It's not rocket science. And I don't really believe that journalists/bloggers/columnists are so easily swayed that an offer of an exclusive or embargo will be enough to transform negative coverage to plosive. I just wish I had that power -- simply a wave of the hand: "these are not the droids you are looking for." And there's only one person who seems to be able to do that, and it's Steve Jobs. ;)