In journalism, according to the Scientific American, an embargo is a "back-room deal" journalists and their sources agree upon to not publish an article before a particular date or time. But the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) takes this embargo idea to a new level in order to control the who, what, when, where and why of any new FDA information reported to the American public. They call this a "closely held embargo."
The FDA is acting as a nation unto itself, proclaiming and enacting closely held embargoes as dictatorial policy. And it seems clear that instead of a vibrant, relentless independent media who fights back against any form of censorship, the sheeplike mainstream journalists simply bow down to FDA edicts.
There is only a select group of reporters that are invited to attend and hear FDA pronouncements. These are "top-tier media organizations," or perhaps we should say propaganda arms, from corporations like NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe, to name a few. Even the so-called venerable and quasi respected National Public Radio (NPR) has agreed to embargo terms, where they promise to "not ask any questions" of anyone who has not been pre-approved by FDA staff and never, ever release or publish anything ahead of an FDA approved timeline.
This now common practice is being utilized in a "surprisingly large portion" of written articles featuring health and science context. Even business journalism has been tainted. And although the FDA denies embargo as an official policy, they still maintain that using embargoes will assist reporters in developing articles in an "informed accurate way."
Journalists can't question third party sources and can be removed from the press list for even saying the embargo exists. More reasons to distrust the FDA. Why not try a truthful science journal?