I asked Moka off-list to clarify the points that were concerning me. My comment and her response are below.

She suggested I forward it to the list, "I think it's a good point to raise to help others think through how the release might be tailored. In the end, it's there for them to edit and remix."

So see below :)

FT2

My email:

While laughing gently at one's past is admirable, I'm just not sure about the degree of self-deprecation. In this release a reader takes away the key points that it has a "funny name", that its early articles were pointless and trite, that the last words in the next paragraph (which tend to linger) are "total disaster".

The rest (and anything strong) comes much further down, but traditionally a skim-reader is less likely to pick up on stuff the further down it is.

I guess I mainly want to re-check, does this work in media terms?

Response:

I hear you. I think this release is more about writing to celebrate,

rather than writing for a real news hook. If you take a look at most

of the Foundation releases, it's more about the ceremonial process.

The nice thing about the 10 year is that almost all press are already
writing about it, so we dont have to sell them on a story-- and that's

mainly the function of a press release.

Does that make sense?