I have literally offered this. When writing for Better Investing Magazine I interviewed a company that one of my students was working for about some project (which I think involved e-payments) my student was working on. During the interview the person I was talking with inadvertently said something that could have been interpreted negatively and he paused. I said something like “don’t worry I would never write a story that would hurt my student” and the interview went on. This kind of thing might be commonplace.
I don’t think you did anything like what’s proposed in the OP. You didn’t form a contract that limited your views.
In addition there’s a huge difference between using information that of someone who shares information that’s tactically bad from them to share and generally not saying anything bad about the person.
When giving interviews about QS to respectable journalist my experience was that they generally operated under a codex where I could say “please don’t publish information XY, treat it as deep background (my father spoke about “under 3” for information like this when he spoke with journalists).
On the other hand no respectable journalist would have accepted an agreement that binds them to write positively about QS.
Additionally I was quoted in a negative article about QS by a journalist with whom I never spoke. If you step out into the public debate than you have to be okay with negative articles.
*My experience with media is mostly German media. Norms for the press might differ in the US or Australia.
I have literally offered this. When writing for Better Investing Magazine I interviewed a company that one of my students was working for about some project (which I think involved e-payments) my student was working on. During the interview the person I was talking with inadvertently said something that could have been interpreted negatively and he paused. I said something like “don’t worry I would never write a story that would hurt my student” and the interview went on. This kind of thing might be commonplace.
I don’t think you did anything like what’s proposed in the OP. You didn’t form a contract that limited your views.
In addition there’s a huge difference between using information that of someone who shares information that’s tactically bad from them to share and generally not saying anything bad about the person.
When giving interviews about QS to respectable journalist my experience was that they generally operated under a codex where I could say “please don’t publish information XY, treat it as deep background (my father spoke about “under 3” for information like this when he spoke with journalists). On the other hand no respectable journalist would have accepted an agreement that binds them to write positively about QS.
Additionally I was quoted in a negative article about QS by a journalist with whom I never spoke. If you step out into the public debate than you have to be okay with negative articles.
*My experience with media is mostly German media. Norms for the press might differ in the US or Australia.