On October 29 I'll be on a panel with Mike Arrington from Techcrunch and Mark Glazer from NPR's Media Shift, moderated by Sam Whitmore from Media Survey, discussing embargoes and if they have a future.

The event will be at Varnish Gallery in downtown San Francisco at 6pm and is organized by Waggener Edstrom-San Francisco.

The topic is interesting because embargoes don't seem to work anymore. Techcrunch is famous for breaking embargoes; Wall Street Journal and other publications no longer accept embargoes; while others keep embargoes but are then upset when they are broken, and that can strain relationships between PR people and journalists.

I do accept embargoes but then I end up not writing about the news because the embargo is too far out in time and I've either forgotten about the news or have gotten bored by it. And of course, the embargo is usually broken so what's the point?

But how should companies distribute important news in a fair manner, giving every media outlet a chance to interview key executives and research and write the story?

Are embargoes better suited for different types of stories? Is it possible to create a new type of rule book around embargoes?

Hopefully you can join us on October 29 for "Embargo 2010: Industry Conversation on Future Rules of Media Engagement."