Off And On The Record
Sources and readers often get confused about the term "off the record."
What I tell reporters is information should not be taken off the record. If a source up front says, "Off the record ... ," then the reporter should stop the interview, request the information be provided on "background" and explain the difference between the two terms.
That way, the source does not have exclusive control over the information, and the reporter is free to pursue other sources to verify the information. The background source's identity will be protected.
There are exceptions, of course, to accepting off-the-record material, such as sources and reporters getting close enough to discuss non-newsworthy personal matters, such as an upcoming colonoscopy or whether their boss was a lousy cook at the company picnic.
However, if they're that comfortable with each other to share that kind of thing, they shouldn't have to discuss up front whether the information is off the record.
It's just understood.
I've been in this business for 22 years, and neither I nor anyone I've ever worked with, to my knowledge, has burned a source by writing off-the-record information into a story for publication. The last thing we want to do is trash trust with a reliable, valuable source and destroy our credibility.
However, there are exceptions to that, too, such as a source confessing to a murder. If you tell me you killed somebody, I sure as hell am not going to protect you.
But the best way to avoid any confusion is to not accept off-the-record remarks in the first place.
What sources don't understand is that they can't engage in an interview with a reporter and close the interview with "Oh, and that was all off the record."
Sorry, but it was.
If a source wants that information off the record, it must be agreed upon up front.
Again, there are exceptions.
We don't expect everyday people to understand all journalism rules. We don't want to take advantage of people. If they have second thoughts about something they told a reporter, we'll weigh all facets of it and carefully decide whether the information warrants publication.
Public figures such as elected officials don't get the same leverage when it comes to taking back things they say on the record. As public figures, they should be familiar with how the media works, and governmental agencies and companies often teach courses on dealing with journalists.
Why?
Because effectively communicating with the media just comes with the job.
What I tell reporters is information should not be taken off the record. If a source up front says, "Off the record ... ," then the reporter should stop the interview, request the information be provided on "background" and explain the difference between the two terms.
That way, the source does not have exclusive control over the information, and the reporter is free to pursue other sources to verify the information. The background source's identity will be protected.
There are exceptions, of course, to accepting off-the-record material, such as sources and reporters getting close enough to discuss non-newsworthy personal matters, such as an upcoming colonoscopy or whether their boss was a lousy cook at the company picnic.
However, if they're that comfortable with each other to share that kind of thing, they shouldn't have to discuss up front whether the information is off the record.
It's just understood.
I've been in this business for 22 years, and neither I nor anyone I've ever worked with, to my knowledge, has burned a source by writing off-the-record information into a story for publication. The last thing we want to do is trash trust with a reliable, valuable source and destroy our credibility.
However, there are exceptions to that, too, such as a source confessing to a murder. If you tell me you killed somebody, I sure as hell am not going to protect you.
But the best way to avoid any confusion is to not accept off-the-record remarks in the first place.
What sources don't understand is that they can't engage in an interview with a reporter and close the interview with "Oh, and that was all off the record."
Sorry, but it was.
If a source wants that information off the record, it must be agreed upon up front.
Again, there are exceptions.
We don't expect everyday people to understand all journalism rules. We don't want to take advantage of people. If they have second thoughts about something they told a reporter, we'll weigh all facets of it and carefully decide whether the information warrants publication.
Public figures such as elected officials don't get the same leverage when it comes to taking back things they say on the record. As public figures, they should be familiar with how the media works, and governmental agencies and companies often teach courses on dealing with journalists.
Why?
Because effectively communicating with the media just comes with the job.
posted by Brian Pearson at 3:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home