It is a mutually-parasitic relationship between tech sites and the PR companies that represent the firms we cover. Online publications — like Icrontic — are made or broken by the ability to create compelling new content enticing to the reader. In a similar respect, PR firms are sustained by the ability to widely disseminate material on the topics we write about.

These interests seemingly put the parties at odds: PR firms live to create a raft of press for their client, and publications dream of the traffic that results from being the only press for a sensational new product. Even with ostensibly disparate goals, the governance of mutualism binds and drives both parties forward in their goals. And as with any delicate ecosystem, a tremendous shift in the equilibrium threatens the welfare of everyone.

To that end, TechCrunch’s recent decision to violate any embargo to which they agree is both disingenuous and an insult to readers.

The embargo is a fragile contract in the ongoing relationship between PR firms and online publications. It is a gentleman’s agreement that obliges the press to withhold publication on a product until an arbitrary date has passed. The effect of simultaneous and worldwide coverage can be arresting: the product is given an air of importance that organically breeds interest, if not excitement. Given that a PR firm’s primary responsibility is to generate positive brand image for a client, the sudden surge in coverage and interest simultaneously validates a client’s investment in the firm.

From the perspective of publication, the embargo is beneficial as it grants metered time to evaluate a product free of the rush to publish. This period of untroubled reflection gives us license to thoroughly assess minor — and perhaps very important — details that may go unnoticed when testing in haste.

You, the reader, are any publication’s most important commodity. You sustain us, you give us an outlet for our creative pursuits, and you shape our direction with your feedback. Given your pivotal role in the function of this industry, you are owed content that has been crafted with great care and consideration. An armistice in the arms race to publish the content you want to read gives us the time to craft the articles that you deserve.

The embargo is also insurance against one-dimensional coverage. The sheer variety of online publications all but proves that this is an industry with varied perspectives and points of expertise. While ample publication assures the presentation of a complete picture, TechCrunch strives to rob the reader of this right with the call for exclusives. “We will honor embargoes from trusted companies and PR firms who give us the news exclusively,” writes TechCrunch owner Michael Arrington.

The willingness to honor embargoes at the price of exclusivity is just one of many insincere exceptions; he admits several throughout his recent fit. “One is Waggener Edstrom, who handles PR for Microsoft. Their embargoes don’t break because they’d unleash hell on the offender. Another is Google. The few times they’ve had problems they’ve chosen the nuclear option and banned the offender for as much as a year,” he writes. Arrington is apparently committed to his crusade only until it would cost him inclusion in big announcements.

Arrington cites lack of penalty as a primary motivator behind the rise in embargo violations. “The PR firm gets upset but they don’t stop working with the offending publication or writer. You get a slap on the wrist, and you break another embargo later that day,” he says. Isn’t this the epidemic we should be fighting? Perhaps Arrington is willing to sacrifice journalistic integrity for the sake of numbers; Icrontic certainly is not.

Arrington reasons that market saturation is also to blame for the rise in embargo violations. “Traffic and links flow in to whoever breaks an embargo first… That means it’s a race to the bottom by new sites, which are increasingly stressed themselves with a competitive marketplace and decreasing advertising sales,” he writes. In the interim, Arrington and TechCrunch seem perfectly content to run afoul of their own criticisms by committing to the growing heap of dishonorable sites that refuse to play by rules.

As flagrant disrespect for the embargo does little more than foster the issue they take into contention, Michael Arrington’s recent denouncement seems more flippant than reasoned. Reducing the coverage of important products to a nuclear arms race of publication simply robs the reader of the right to comprehensive content. While we encourage PR firms to pursue the NDA in exchange for the embargo, we are committed to honoring the embargo all the same. We are more than willing to cultivate our readership through a quality product, rather than through the frenzy to yell “FIRST!” across the internet.