A recent mishap by an Obama campaigner brought an interesting question to my desk. When a source tries to place a snippet of conversation off-the-record retroactively immediately after having spoken, what should a reporter do? Can sources do this, particularly after emitting some blunder (or non-blunder) that will likely have important consequences? Managing Editor Amanda Sebba sent me a Washington Post article that brings up this interesting issue. In theory, the source and reporter must always agree beforehand that what is being said is “off the record,” in which case nothing stated is up for publication or to be relayed with attribution directly to other sources. We teach our reporters during training that there are three basic ways to speak to a source:
- On-the-record: In can be printed in your story and attributed to the source.
- Off-the-record: That quote cannot appear in the story in any form, attributed to anybody.
- Background: The ideas or or information in the quote can appear in the story, but they cannot be attributed to any particular person directly.
These are very basic. When it comes down to it, each source-reporter relationship is different. But these guidelines help clear confusion. As mentioned above, sometimes sources will say something on-the-record, then ask to have that taken off-the-record. The reporter is under no obligation to do so. Occasionally, the reporter can grant some leeway, in particular if the quote was not of importance to the story. But in the case of any source who is experienced with talking to the media, like a student government president, an administrator, or a spokesperson, we train our reporters to take a much harder line with such requests. A person like Samantha Power really has no excuse for saying something on-the-record they’d rather not appear in print - it’s up to the reporter to weigh the given situation and the quote’s foreseeable circumstances.
As someone who fits the definition of “experienced with talking to the media” whom you’ve interviewed in the past, I’m a bit disappointed by this attitude. Much more important than an artificial notion of on- or off-the-record is the relationship between the reporter and the source. If you wish to maintain quality sources, you will respect their wishes.
In particular, this means that if, in the middle of an on-the-record conversation, the interviewee tells you “now, just for background, I think…” or “off-the-record, I think” or even immediately follows a comment with a request that it not be quoted (not always due to mis-speaking, sometimes out of camaraderie and openness with the reporter), that should be honored. If I say something to the Spectator and specifically request that it not appear in print, and it gets printed anyway, I categorically will not speak with that reporter again.
Consider whether the “hard line” or the continued relationship with the individual is more important.
I might also add that another “very basic” journalistic procedure, especially when dealing with “experienced” people whom you want to interview again, is to run the quote by the source before printing it. Extending this courtesy to your sources would earn a lot of goodwill.
Said Anonymous Source,
On March 12, 2008 at 10:59 am:
Dear Anonymous Source,
That’s a great point, and I don’t mean to sound like I disagree. I generally aim for–and encourage others to do so as well–a good relationship with sources. There is too much of a “Gotcha!” mentality in the media already. We absolutely are open to a source going off-the-record in the middle of an on-the-record conversation, and in most cases it’s up to the reporter when it comes to retroactive use. The point I was trying to make is that we don’t want there to be a presiding tradition in which we ALWAYS grant such retroactive requests–that could put us in a difficult position. So we leave it to the reporter’s judgment…and most reporters lean toward the kind of relationship you describe, of openness and camaraderie. Even in utilitarian terms (not that that is how we necessarily operate) a good relationship with sources usually helps the reporter too. Thanks for writing! –Tom Faure
Said Tom,
On March 12, 2008 at 11:47 pm:
There is no such thing as off the record. I gave an interview to a spec journalist and every single thing I said in jest or mocking myself was put into the article. I’m not subtle. I used a funny voice, made comments about making fun of people’s perceptions of me. The way she portrayed me though- still haunts me to this day a year later. It ruined my repuation on campus and beyond. I just hope my PE firm never buys her newspaper.
Said Alden Greenfield,
On March 12, 2008 at 11:37 pm: