Apparently the New York Times and the Baltimore Sun hate children. Both have published early reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, perhaps with spoilers -- I don't know because I refuse to read them. Indeed, the Grand Rapids Press deserves a big raspberry for printing the New York Times review in the news section, albeit with a warning.
Thursday night on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann Keith interviewed the reviewer for the Baltimore Sun. She explained that unlike the case of an embargo, where the publisher gives them an early review copy, they got their copy "through legitimate means" and therefore (a) had no obligation to abide by any embargo and (b) an obligation to their millions of readers to... oh bullshit!
A reporter for the Baltimore Sun got a copy on Tuesday because the discount place he pre-ordered from shipped early. That distributor is going to be sued by Scholastic. Though the reporter didn't do anything to fascilitate early delivery, the distributor broke their agreement with Scholastic, so it isn't exactly free and clear, above board, virtuous "through legitimate means".
You KNEW What You Were Doing
Why are these American newspapers choosing to fuck with children? While it isn't an outbreak of world peace or anything like that, to the 12 million people who are expected to get copies tomorrow or shortly after, the release of the "last" Harry Potter book is a big deal. Why do you want to spoil it? Even if your review contains no spoilers -- we don't want to hear it. It's not like the people getting the book on Saturday are going to not buy it, turn it back in, if you print a negative review. So what's the point?
Once I Was Proud of You
I was always astonished that most of the media reviewers managed not to give away the movie The Sixth Sense. That allowed the movie to build in popularity for several weeks -- and made it enjoyable to go and watch it a second time, only now armed with knowledge.
Ohmygod, You Killed Kenny
Why oh why couldn't you've been nice?