[covidthrow]

Thank you for noticing this.

This is a media blitz, and one may wonder why there are prepared, published stories about CDC guidance that hadn't yet even been published.

I'm sure there are many rational reasons for this. One, indeed, is particularly salient.

[estaseuropano]

This is 100% normal. Press is informed under embargo to assure information goes out quickly and widely once the information is ready/ public. Nothing nefarious about it.

[tidydata]

Why wouldn’t the CDC publish guidance once it is ready, which the media can than report on? The mere coordination (and normalcy thereof) is exactly why people view these policies (gatekeeping) as nefarious.

[cycomanic]

I can give you an example, if you want information to get out and spread quickly, do you 1. put it on your website and wait until people notice it and dissiminate it or 2. Let the main information "spreaders" know in advance so they can prepare articles (possibly do some interviews) etc? Which do you think reaches more people in a given time?

[iso1210]

You post on your website, somebody notices, 'spreaders' race to get faulty quick copy out (better fast than right), gives the conspiracy theorists a headstart as people start looking for more detail.

Or you issue an embargoed release, allowing responsible 'spreaders' to get their ducks in a row, and then cometh the hour, cometh the copy-edited verbose well referenced pieces.

The latter is far better than the former.

[tidydata]

This model gives government the power of choosing who is and is not a “trusted source” and depends on a relationship where those sources report uncritically about the information they are being given. It is also prioritizing which (for-profit) business gets favorable access.

From a practicality perspective it makes sense. From a propaganda perspective it’s chilling.

[Gene_Parmesan]

There is really nothing chilling about national media outlets getting a PR a few hours before the PR is made public. Promise.