Clarification re: Off the record

A commenter responding to my last post made an excellent point about reporters taking a hard line with sources. I wanted to acknowledge that comment and clarify that I didn’t mean to sound like we have a hard and fast rule on taking the hard line. Especially since we’re a local/campus newspaper, we’re often talking to sources that are students just like us, who have housing registration, tough classes, CUID swipe problems, etc. The point of my last post was to clarify the most basic division between off/on-the-record and ‘on background’ and to explain that we can’t grant a priori retroactive off-the-record requests. In my time as a reporter I don’t remember ever not granting such a request though–or at least asking for another comment in the same vein. It’s a question of balancing the public’s interest in the short- and long-term (to put it in grandiose, well, terms).

Reader’s comment after jump:

Here’s the comment:

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.

My comment in response: 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!