[losvedir]

Was the "UPDATE" to the article published when you left your comment?

    UPDATE: Just got off the phone with Hamadeh 
    [PrivCo CEO], who is standing by his original report.
    He says O'Shaughnessy is misleading his own employees,
    and that classifying the round as "equity" is a 
    technicality given all of the debt-like provisions
    PrivCo continues to believe were attached. He also says
    that PrivCo spoke with a LivingSocial spokesman prior
    to publishing, and sent him a draft of the report with
    a request for any needed corrections. When nothing came
    back four hours later, PrivCo published.

I'm not sure if he's just trying to salvage a poor decision to go forward with this article, or if there's actually something here, though.

[tptacek]

The update makes PrivCo look even worse, by implying that it was LivingSocial's responsibility to ensure that their bogus report was accurate. Look, I can play that game right now: I'll write a 3 page report on Dropbox's impending bankruptcy, send it to them, and when they don't respond report it as fact.

[larrys]

"He also says that PrivCo spoke with a LivingSocial spokesman prior to publishing, and sent him a draft of the report with a request for any needed corrections. When nothing came back four hours later, PrivCo published."

With respect to the "4 hours later" I would like to know what the standard is in the news business before "going to press" with a story.

I'm not entirely certain that a news organization would wait more than 4 hours if they feel they are publishing information or trying to scoop someone. Each news organization is different of course and has different standards. I don't think this is as unusual as it sounds (I could be wrong of course).

I will ask a writer(customer we have) at the NY Times what the standard is for this (I'll be lucky if they reply to me within 4 hours of course).

[tptacek]

The NYT would be confident in the sourcing of its information if it was rushing something to press. PrivCo's "source" (generously stipulating it exists) didn't even know who LS's investors were.

[larrys]

I got the answer.

The question I posed was:

"When a news organization has what they think is a "scoop" and reaches out to confirm info with a company what is the normal time to wait for a reply before running with the story? I understand each organization has different standards and each situation is different. What are the guidelines or standards that you have seen after a PR depart at a company has been contacted for comment?"

Here was the answer from someone at the NYT (for at least 10 years) that has done front cover pieces and covered startups (among other things):

"It really depends on the topic, the competition and who's being asked to comment. If I called someone like you (business owner) and you didn't at least acknowledge my inquiry within a day -- perhaps asking for more time -- and it was a big scoop, I might not wait much longer. But if I had big news about a government agency or large multinational corporation with many layers, then some topics would merit more time for a response. There are a lot of variables though ... if the CEO of a large corporation got busted for drunk driving and killing someone, that's more time-sensitive than asking for comment about a long-term investigation into fraudulent practices at the company. And as you said, different media outlets have different standards."

[tptacek]

You should ask how good their source would have to be to run a story without a response from its subject inside of 4 hours.

[sgrove]

Be sure to do it only if they don't respond within four hours.

[bruceb]

I wonder if it was on the record or off the record. If it is a leak then I wonder if LS would check all the emails of top employees to find the leaker (if they were dumb enough to send from company email).

PrivCo saying they "...sent him a draft of the report with a request for any needed corrections. When nothing came back four hours later.." they assumed everything is true is a weak though.

I guess I will send LS an email saying I am the new CEO, please email back if this needs to be corrected...

...I will let you guys know if they don't respond, in which case, D.C. here I come!

[ImprovedSilence]

If they did, in fact, send an email to LS, I would hazard to guess they would send it at 2:30 am.

[PrivCoTeam]

PrivCo had a full 45 minute phone call with LivingSocial's OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN to fact check data and also get new facts he offered up about the financing round. That was at 4:30pm Thursday. At 6pm Thursday he received the draft report (as he was eagerly expecting) so he could reply suggesting anything factually wrong, and if he wish provide an official statement which PrivCo would include verbatim. NONE were returned to PrivCo. We emailed again at 7pm, no response. Shortly after 10pm ET when our staff finally couldn't stay any later, we published. (FYI most news organizations refuse and NEVER send actual drafts to the subject companies to "mark up". So PrivCo went above and beyond the call of duty.

[FireBeyond]

"We'll send you a draft report at 6pm Eastern. If we don't hear from you by 10pm Eastern, we publish."

I'm sure your out-of-hours deadlines were totally non-negotiable, and that holding off on the release til the next morning were absolutely essential, right?