I can understand that viewpoint, but in my opinion that mischaractarises whaat is going on here. This isn't about co-ordinating a zero-hour for publication. The agreed embargo exists so that all partners can benefit equally from the efforts each has contributed. The jointly created information resource is used by each contributor to satisfy aspects/angles of the story that are of relevance/interest to their various audiences. (My reference to "breaking ranks" expresses my distaste at ostensibly professional journalists acting in bad faith to gain a first-mover commercial advantage.)

This is pooling resources to get an essential but hugely expensive, difficult and time-consuming job done (ie inform a public about things affecting them, their society, economy, government etc) than it is about a dog pack targeting an enemy and ripping it to shreds. Even in the Facebook case, there's ample scope and enough evidence to say that lights need to be shone on the activities of something so pervasive, ubiquitous and influential at a global societal scale. Other collaborations, such as Pandora, Panama mentioned in the article, don't even have an entity that one might suggest was a "hated competitor".

Collaboration between news outlets to cover issues too big/expensive to handle is not a new idea; Associated Press in the US and Australian Associated Press in Australia were collaborative efforts between news outlets. AP was created to cover the costs of transmitting information during a war [1]:

The Associated Press was formed in May 1846[7] by five daily newspapers in New York City to share the cost of transmitting news of the Mexican–American War.[8] The venture was organized by Moses Yale Beach (1800–68), second publisher of The Sun, joined by the New York Herald, the New York Courier and Enquirer, The Journal of Commerce, and the New York Evening Express.

And AAP was created to share the costs of cable technology [2]:

Australia was first linked to international telegraph services by a submarine cable that linked Java to Darwin, which was laid by the British-Australian Telegraph Company, and completed on 18 November 1871.[5] The Eastern states were connected through Adelaide on the completion of the Australian Overland Telegraph Line in 1872.[6][7] As a result, the time it took to transmit news from Europe to Australia was dramatically reduced, having previously taken weeks or months to arrive via post on ships, news could now be transmitted in just hours by telegraph.[6][8] Anticipating that the cost of sending messages would be high, the Melbourne newspaper The Argus formed an association with The Sydney Morning Herald, creating an agreement with the Reuters news agency for the transmission of news to Australia.

These associations were formed out of a need to co-operate in order to do a job. It is no different today. News media are no longer awash with money; resources have to be pooled. Even in better times, outlets would divvy up coverage of Olympic and other global sporting events that were too big for one organisation to handle. Also for wars, disasters, elections, coups etc in remote territories.

The ad hoc alliances referred to in the article address newer and more urgent needs. Big stories requiring massive data collection efforts, and then the analysis of millions of data points and documents gathered are truly beyond the capabilities of any individual news outlet, hence co-operation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press#History

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Associated_Press