11 ms·

What Does ‘Off the Record’ Really Mean?

126 points by js2 8y ago

ballenf 8y ago
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that every time a journalist agrees to any ground rules they have compromised their profession or given the appearance of compromise (which is actually worse than hidden corruption in terms of the effect on public trust). Conditions on reporting turn reporters ever so slightly from press to publicist. And at that point it's like the cliché about being willing to sleep with someone for millions -- the character has been established and the only thing left is negotiating the price. Even though the article says it's not done, you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. News orgs live and die by the access they get and if some reporters are willing to prostitute themselves to get it, it puts enormous pressure on the rest. Conditions on reporting should be treated like doping in sports. Edit: there is one area in which my framework needs a clarifying remark. A reporter can always voluntarily refuse to identify a source or otherwise protect it and the source can always use electronic or even snail mail methods to preserve their anonymity. My comments above are not intended to mean that reporters must always report every detail of every interaction, only that agreeing to conditions in advance can compromise their integrity and pervert the role of the press generally. 2nd edit: I'm convinced there are areas where granting anonymity is absolutely essential. My above position was clearly a knee-jerk and not well grounded in reality. Thanks HN.
- ForrestN 8y ago
  The reality is that nearly all sources, on or off the record, have an agenda. That’s why reporters usually need multiple sources and other proof to run something important. History is filled with stories that would never have been told if the people who told them weren’t granted anonymity. Going off the record shouldn’t be accepted easily, and some reporters (including some stars at the Times) give anonymity to people in the current administration who are known to lie constantly, which is a terrible practice. But eliminating tools reporters can use to unconver dangerous hidden truths just for the sake of “objectivity,” which is always an illusion, doesn’t make sense to me.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ballenf 8y ago
    I edited my comment above in anticipation of this truth. You're right and the difficulty with anonymously passing info is that the reporter can't verify the source's integrity very easily (not every source has access to a non-public document or other independent source of identity verification). I still believe these issues can be addressed without a reporter compromising themselves. Maybe one bright line rule everyone could agree to is no conditions on reporting when covering an elected or high-ranking (cabinet level or heads of agencies, etc.) official. Wouldn't even cover their staff -- but anything you see or hear a politician or high-level official do should be reportable in my opinion.
    - dhsbak 8y ago
      It’s admirable to reconsider as you have, but there are some serious inconsistencies in the popular ideas you’re aligning with and you may want to clarify. The difference between whistleblowing and reporting is purely subjective and ultimately undermine the ideals of noble protections for the press that so many love to defend. Until we find consistency here, we are also protecting a privileged class of reporters and should at least consider the ramifications of delegating press responsibilities this way before settling. Why should we be guarding the NYT reporters while at the same time banishing Snowden? In an age of electronic media, our economy of attention is a full capacity. Freedom of expression is a tiny concern compared with power of distributions. Centralization of press responsibilities (separate discussion) make sense but we must confront the realities of the machine this creates when we put so much into protections. Many jobs carry great risk, and people choose them anyhow. Risk acceptance is a classical way of measuring one’s loyalty to the the collective good. It’s the basis for unmitigated respect to a nation’s soldiers. Our current attention economy and the desirability to be a reporter might serve a critical public good. I argue we should reconsider accepting half-truths in exchange for protections of an elite press. We desperately need a press devoted to working people and this sounds like one possible ethical path in that direction. It’s not an easy one, and worthy of debate. But, what we have is a disaster. EDIT: Off the record, I work in the press. I desire to take more risk in the name of competent work, but as long as I must compete with those comforted by the standard operating procedures, I am afraid I cannot.
- CPLX 8y ago
  That’s just nonsense. There are many valid reasons why people might want to stay out of the news but provide information. The archetypal example of Deep Throat, now known to be a top FBI offical, leading reporters towards independently confirming presidential wrongdoing, does not seem to exemplify a compromised reporter at all. There are many other examples. Sure it’s often misused but the core concept has value.
- untog 8y ago
  > Conditions on reporting turn reporters ever so slightly from press to publicist. Only if that obliged them to report what the source said uncritically, which it doesn't at all. I mean, I'm not defending the principle, but realistically it's where we are. e.g. the Trump administration has outright said that they will fire anyone leaking information to the press. So the only way to get information about what going on in there is to allow your source to be publicly anonymous. > you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. Corruption exists in every industry and journalism is no different. The question for any reader is working out who they trust. The NYT says here that they explicitly ban that practice, and you can either take their word for it or not, I suppose. I don't know how you'd disprove a negative in this context.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  I strongly disagree with you. I was interviewed by the WSJ and a few other organizations a few months ago. There are a variety of details I was willing to give to provide greater clarity and context to the situation, but only if those details wouldn't actually be in the article itself. In fact, these weren't even details that would make me look worse - they're details I personally felt would unfairly make other parties look bad if they were read in a newspaper article. But those details were still germane to the setting of the story. Moreover, I didn't really want my name to be in the story either - I'd rather have my research show up on the first page of a search engine rather than a bunch of news articles about me. The reality of human communication and social dynamics is that the same information can be received quite differently based on 1) the medium of delivery, 2) the person receiving the information, 3) the receiving person's prior knowledge, and 4) the amount of time that can be spent putting the information into a charitable or uncharitable context. Sometimes it is legitimately useful for a reporter to have information which can inform the parts of a story they will report on. And of course if I tell a reporter something, I have no creative control on how or if the information will be used and presented in the final piece. Is this sometimes misused? Of course. But it's not intrinsically bad or good, it simply allows both parties to have greater control and flexibility over what is said. If you took away reporters' ability to get details off the record, you would not find yourself in a new journalistic utopia with greater transparency and accountability. You'd simply make it harder for reporters to find leads and information. I do not believe that setting "ground rules" or "agreeing to terms in advance" compromises the journalistic integrity of a reporter. I think reasonable and honest people can believe it's in the best interest of all involved if they can provide context and clarity without those details being widely disseminated. The potential for misuse here does not negate the flexibility of that paradigm when it's used with integrity.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    Some of the most important reporting simply wouldn't happen without off-the-record conversations. Without protection for sources, very few people will have the confidence to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Without a steady stream of confidential leaks, most political reporters would be completely blind as to the inner workings of government. Without off-the-record reporting, most corporate scandals would never be revealed. https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/20/thetimes-dailytelegraph https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/20/the...
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Investigative journalism is often in a gray zone. I'd they didn't allow conditions then a lot of sources wouldn't and couldn't talk. A lot of whistleblowers would bee afraid of consequences. In the end it's up to the ethics of the journalist to handle this correctly and make sure that off the record conversations aren't misused.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > Even though the article says it's not done, you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. Where does the article say this isn't done? It only says that the journalist isn't bound to retroactively convert comments to be off-the-record at the request of the interviewee. For better or worse, the journalist is always free to selectively report; they are not required to print every statement made on the record.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  A bad web entrepreneur walks into a courtroom with a gaggle of lawyers in tow. accuser - "..You spied on customers, sold their data, etc. etc. We just made a whole bunch of laws about that. Bad!" accused - "All that is true, but I have this nag screen, those terms and conditions and all sorts of stuff my lawyers assure me makes all that legal. Those laws should really have been written differently." judge - Oh. Well.. off you go then. Violating the spirit of a rule, in a rule-oriented environment, is not a rule violation. It can even be vindicating. In sports, for example, playing to the rules is often considered a show of craft & skill. Law too. I think the same applies here. There are lines that should never be crossed. But, it's better to keep journalistic ethics principle-oriented rather than rule-oriented. Conditions can compromise a journalist and let the subject dictate things, turning press into publicist as you say. It can also enable journalists to investigate more effectively. The balance has to be determined in a principled way. It can't be litigated.
  - extralego 8y ago
    This example isn’t cutting it. Aren’t you just scapegoating the criminal justice system? How can this result in anything but a race to the bottom?
    - dalbasal 8y ago
      I don't think it's a race in any direction. There's just a trade-off of sorts between principles and rules. Law works based on rules and so does sports. Not everything is quite that clear-cut, but I think a trade-off is always there. Sometimes one is more appropriate than another.
- selljamhere 8y ago
  I disagree. The article notes several times that a source requiring broad anonymity should be viewed with skepticism. The implication is that the source my have ulterior motives, and the journalist has a duty to determine the story’s veracity. However, not all sources require anonimity simply to spread disinformation. Some of our most culturally significant news stories have spawned from sources requiring extreme anonimity. In these cases it is up to the journalist to corroborate the information.
ISL 8y ago
I once was involved in a journalistic/fact-finding endeavor involving myriad confidential exchanges of information. One of the biggest lessons from the experience has been that a promise of confidentiality should be extended only when absolutely necessary. In aggregate, it would have been better to have a smaller amount of information that could be made public than a comprehensive set of information that remains restricted, perhaps forever. If I need to do such a thing again, I will make plain to each source, in writing when possible, that, while I am attempting to get to the truth and will treat their information with care, I may publish anything I learn, full stop.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Sounds miserable, knowing the truth in detail and feeling forced to write half truths.
  - ACow_Adonis 8y ago
    Isn't that basically the job description for most of us in economics/analytics/information/writing/consulting fields? /haha, only serious.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > If I need to do such a thing again, I will make plain to each source, in writing when possible, that, while I am attempting to get to the truth and will treat their information with care, I may publish anything I learn, full stop. I think the point you are missing is that people won't talk to journalists at all in the first place if they're on the record. You can put your foot down all you like and say 'it's all on the record' but then they'll just say 'ha ha ok no comment then' and you'll learn nothing.
  - ISL 8y ago
    Agreed entirely; it seems like a bad idea, but the flip side is that anything they do feel comfortable sharing with you can be readily shared with others. That second fact, coupled with the reality that many people like to tell their own stories, at least in part, is more powerful than anything learned through anonymity. Viewed another way, if the goal is to get to the truth and share it, it is useless to learn an unshareable truth.
Waterluvian 8y ago
This article was really disappointing. It doesn't answer the only question I really want to read about: what happens when people break these rules?
- mpclark 8y ago
  For it to work there has to be a relationship at stake. If there is, it works every time.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > for it to work there has to be a relationship at stake And for this to have teeth, you need to (a) have relationships with multiple reporters and (b) provide recurring value. The first makes it possible to close off a reporter who misbehaves. The latter gives everyone an incentive to keep that from happening. Journalist-source relationships are political. They aren't governed by laws, but tradeoffs and customs.
    - CPLX 8y ago
      Or you can just hire a publicist that has a long term relationship. The effect can be similar.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Or you can just hire a publicist Unless you’re in the press every day, this hasn’t been—in my experience—worth it. Better to pick the relationships and delegate managing the messaging yourself.
- ad_hominem 8y ago
  They get hired by the New York Times? https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1025425088445702145 https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/102542508844570214...
  - 8y ago
stefan_ 8y ago
In the NYTimes, off the record usually means a government official strategically "leaking" information following the government line, being granted anonymity by the paper because (?).
Atreus 8y ago
Most of the time, when spoken by those in power, it is a lie, and it really means "I'm trying to be deceptive". Most of the time, when requested by those with vulnerability, it is the gateway to critical, but potentially highly dangerous information, and a request for protection.
- Atreus 8y ago
  I think the "one company" media in the US has lost authoritativity and credibility with anyone who thinks. The media makes its money by keeping sheep as sheep, and leading them to the shearers or the slaughter. If it taught critical thought then someone who knows what a free market is would strongly oppose the single-source for news, and that monopoly would end. They would not make as much money with paid workers as they do with slaves - intellectually and cognitively speaking. Junk journalism would get junk revenue, not top billing.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > the "one company" media in the US has lost authoritativity and credibility with anyone who thinks I think quite a bit, and I greatly value many publications. The NYT in particular is an independent company, and so is not part of any 'one company' news media. That said, I do wish there was more diversity in ownership; in particular, I wish there were serious publications that served an audience besides the intellectual middle-upper class.
- lobotryas 8y ago
  That's exactly the kind of attitude that gets a person in trouble. I hope you find some shades of grey in your views. Bad people exist in all stripes of life and in all communities.
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
Delusion.
kpwagner 8y ago
First two words of the article: "President Trump" Is it possible for the news to cover anything without including an opinion about Trump--or his tweets? I am so turned off by this "style" of journalism where every piece includes an opinion (implied or explicit) about the president of the United States. Sad.
- untog 8y ago
  The reason for the article being written is that Trump broke an off the record agreement with the Times a few days ago.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    What does it even mean for a non-journalist to have an off-the-record agreement? If a interviewee asks a journalist that something be off the record, there is generally an expectation that it will not be reported on by the journalist. But does that mean that the interviewee can't talk about what the journalist said during the meeting? I'm interested in hearing what the specifics of the agreement were - whether they were phrased as "neither side talks about this", or if it was just phrased as an 'off the record meeting', which in my mind only applies to the journalist in the room.
    - kpwagner 8y ago
      I thought that term "off the record" was meant to protect sources, not journalists. Whatever the term was expected to mean by both parties, it kind of comes down to what leverage either side has to uphold the verbal agreement. The journalist has a lot to lose if they agree to be off the record, then report on that information. Does Trump care at all that NYT is throwing a toddler fit over his comments? We all know the answer to that one.
  - gweinberg 8y ago
    Not only that, he stared directly into an eclipse!
    - 8y ago
jedberg 8y ago
I won't talk to journalists anymore. It never goes well. Even when I'm talking to a supposedly "friendly" journalist, they will cherry pick my words or "summarize the source" to fit their narrative, even if the meaning is the opposite of what I said. Journalists have a rule that they won't show their articles to sources before publication. I understand why that rule is necessary for adversarial sources, like when you're reporting a negative story on something a politician said. You don't want them to scoop you or try to change the narrative before your article gets out. But when you contact me asking me to explain a technical topic in detail because you don't understand it, why in the world would you not want to show me the article before publication, so that I can make sure you properly captured the nuance? Instead, they quote sentence one of two, where number two has important nuance to it, or they summarize the two sentences inaccurately, and then attach my name to it, making me look uniformed. Then I have to hop on the comments and defend myself, making me look bad and the journalist. In a world where sources can put comments on an article right next to an article, they really need to update their rules to differentiate between friendly and adversarial sources.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > they will cherry pick my words or "summarize the source" to fit their narrative They can't show you their articles, but you can ask them about their angle. If you disagree, it's fine to say "I don't want to be a part of that". If they trust you, they'll ask why not. If you have a proper argument, you'll flip their angle. (I have.) If you have a flimsy argument, and they respect you, they'll tell you why they disagree. And now you have a proper discussion, which I find is much more interesting than answering a series of questions. An important component is to have recurring value. If you're a one-off source, you'll have a bad time. If you can convince them you're of long-term value, now you have mutual leverage.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    I tried that once. Their angle agreed with mine. Until the article came out and it had flipped. So either they flipped their angle after we spoke or they lied to me.
smsm42 8y ago
I expected an article about common journalist practices and I from the start I got an attack on Trump because of some (of a countless and never ending variety) beef they had with them instead. Of course, this could also be seen as "explaining some of our journalistic practices". I get it, good work.

126 points by js2 8y ago

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that every time a journalist agrees to any ground rules they have compromised their profession or given the appearance of compromise (which is actually worse than hidden corruption in terms of the effect on public trust). Conditions on reporting turn reporters ever so slightly from press to publicist. And at that point it's like the cliché about being willing to sleep with someone for millions -- the character has been established and the only thing left is negotiating the price. Even though the article says it's not done, you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. News orgs live and die by the access they get and if some reporters are willing to prostitute themselves to get it, it puts enormous pressure on the rest. Conditions on reporting should be treated like doping in sports. Edit: there is one area in which my framework needs a clarifying remark. A reporter can always voluntarily refuse to identify a source or otherwise protect it and the source can always use electronic or even snail mail methods to preserve their anonymity. My comments above are not intended to mean that reporters must always report every detail of every interaction, only that agreeing to conditions in advance can compromise their integrity and pervert the role of the press generally. 2nd edit: I'm convinced there are areas where granting anonymity is absolutely essential. My above position was clearly a knee-jerk and not well grounded in reality. Thanks HN.

ForrestN 8y ago
The reality is that nearly all sources, on or off the record, have an agenda. That’s why reporters usually need multiple sources and other proof to run something important. History is filled with stories that would never have been told if the people who told them weren’t granted anonymity. Going off the record shouldn’t be accepted easily, and some reporters (including some stars at the Times) give anonymity to people in the current administration who are known to lie constantly, which is a terrible practice. But eliminating tools reporters can use to unconver dangerous hidden truths just for the sake of “objectivity,” which is always an illusion, doesn’t make sense to me.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ballenf 8y ago
  I edited my comment above in anticipation of this truth. You're right and the difficulty with anonymously passing info is that the reporter can't verify the source's integrity very easily (not every source has access to a non-public document or other independent source of identity verification). I still believe these issues can be addressed without a reporter compromising themselves. Maybe one bright line rule everyone could agree to is no conditions on reporting when covering an elected or high-ranking (cabinet level or heads of agencies, etc.) official. Wouldn't even cover their staff -- but anything you see or hear a politician or high-level official do should be reportable in my opinion.
  - dhsbak 8y ago
    It’s admirable to reconsider as you have, but there are some serious inconsistencies in the popular ideas you’re aligning with and you may want to clarify. The difference between whistleblowing and reporting is purely subjective and ultimately undermine the ideals of noble protections for the press that so many love to defend. Until we find consistency here, we are also protecting a privileged class of reporters and should at least consider the ramifications of delegating press responsibilities this way before settling. Why should we be guarding the NYT reporters while at the same time banishing Snowden? In an age of electronic media, our economy of attention is a full capacity. Freedom of expression is a tiny concern compared with power of distributions. Centralization of press responsibilities (separate discussion) make sense but we must confront the realities of the machine this creates when we put so much into protections. Many jobs carry great risk, and people choose them anyhow. Risk acceptance is a classical way of measuring one’s loyalty to the the collective good. It’s the basis for unmitigated respect to a nation’s soldiers. Our current attention economy and the desirability to be a reporter might serve a critical public good. I argue we should reconsider accepting half-truths in exchange for protections of an elite press. We desperately need a press devoted to working people and this sounds like one possible ethical path in that direction. It’s not an easy one, and worthy of debate. But, what we have is a disaster. EDIT: Off the record, I work in the press. I desire to take more risk in the name of competent work, but as long as I must compete with those comforted by the standard operating procedures, I am afraid I cannot.
CPLX 8y ago
That’s just nonsense. There are many valid reasons why people might want to stay out of the news but provide information. The archetypal example of Deep Throat, now known to be a top FBI offical, leading reporters towards independently confirming presidential wrongdoing, does not seem to exemplify a compromised reporter at all. There are many other examples. Sure it’s often misused but the core concept has value.
untog 8y ago
> Conditions on reporting turn reporters ever so slightly from press to publicist. Only if that obliged them to report what the source said uncritically, which it doesn't at all. I mean, I'm not defending the principle, but realistically it's where we are. e.g. the Trump administration has outright said that they will fire anyone leaking information to the press. So the only way to get information about what going on in there is to allow your source to be publicly anonymous. > you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. Corruption exists in every industry and journalism is no different. The question for any reader is working out who they trust. The NYT says here that they explicitly ban that practice, and you can either take their word for it or not, I suppose. I don't know how you'd disprove a negative in this context.
throwawaymath 8y ago
I strongly disagree with you. I was interviewed by the WSJ and a few other organizations a few months ago. There are a variety of details I was willing to give to provide greater clarity and context to the situation, but only if those details wouldn't actually be in the article itself. In fact, these weren't even details that would make me look worse - they're details I personally felt would unfairly make other parties look bad if they were read in a newspaper article. But those details were still germane to the setting of the story. Moreover, I didn't really want my name to be in the story either - I'd rather have my research show up on the first page of a search engine rather than a bunch of news articles about me. The reality of human communication and social dynamics is that the same information can be received quite differently based on 1) the medium of delivery, 2) the person receiving the information, 3) the receiving person's prior knowledge, and 4) the amount of time that can be spent putting the information into a charitable or uncharitable context. Sometimes it is legitimately useful for a reporter to have information which can inform the parts of a story they will report on. And of course if I tell a reporter something, I have no creative control on how or if the information will be used and presented in the final piece. Is this sometimes misused? Of course. But it's not intrinsically bad or good, it simply allows both parties to have greater control and flexibility over what is said. If you took away reporters' ability to get details off the record, you would not find yourself in a new journalistic utopia with greater transparency and accountability. You'd simply make it harder for reporters to find leads and information. I do not believe that setting "ground rules" or "agreeing to terms in advance" compromises the journalistic integrity of a reporter. I think reasonable and honest people can believe it's in the best interest of all involved if they can provide context and clarity without those details being widely disseminated. The potential for misuse here does not negate the flexibility of that paradigm when it's used with integrity.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Some of the most important reporting simply wouldn't happen without off-the-record conversations. Without protection for sources, very few people will have the confidence to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Without a steady stream of confidential leaks, most political reporters would be completely blind as to the inner workings of government. Without off-the-record reporting, most corporate scandals would never be revealed. https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/20/thetimes-dailytelegraph https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/20/the...
maxxxxx 8y ago
Investigative journalism is often in a gray zone. I'd they didn't allow conditions then a lot of sources wouldn't and couldn't talk. A lot of whistleblowers would bee afraid of consequences. In the end it's up to the ethics of the journalist to handle this correctly and make sure that off the record conversations aren't misused.
jessriedel 8y ago
> Even though the article says it's not done, you have to imagine that some reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in exchange for access or a scoop. Where does the article say this isn't done? It only says that the journalist isn't bound to retroactively convert comments to be off-the-record at the request of the interviewee. For better or worse, the journalist is always free to selectively report; they are not required to print every statement made on the record.
dalbasal 8y ago
A bad web entrepreneur walks into a courtroom with a gaggle of lawyers in tow. accuser - "..You spied on customers, sold their data, etc. etc. We just made a whole bunch of laws about that. Bad!" accused - "All that is true, but I have this nag screen, those terms and conditions and all sorts of stuff my lawyers assure me makes all that legal. Those laws should really have been written differently." judge - Oh. Well.. off you go then. Violating the spirit of a rule, in a rule-oriented environment, is not a rule violation. It can even be vindicating. In sports, for example, playing to the rules is often considered a show of craft & skill. Law too. I think the same applies here. There are lines that should never be crossed. But, it's better to keep journalistic ethics principle-oriented rather than rule-oriented. Conditions can compromise a journalist and let the subject dictate things, turning press into publicist as you say. It can also enable journalists to investigate more effectively. The balance has to be determined in a principled way. It can't be litigated.
- extralego 8y ago
  This example isn’t cutting it. Aren’t you just scapegoating the criminal justice system? How can this result in anything but a race to the bottom?
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    I don't think it's a race in any direction. There's just a trade-off of sorts between principles and rules. Law works based on rules and so does sports. Not everything is quite that clear-cut, but I think a trade-off is always there. Sometimes one is more appropriate than another.
selljamhere 8y ago
I disagree. The article notes several times that a source requiring broad anonymity should be viewed with skepticism. The implication is that the source my have ulterior motives, and the journalist has a duty to determine the story’s veracity. However, not all sources require anonimity simply to spread disinformation. Some of our most culturally significant news stories have spawned from sources requiring extreme anonimity. In these cases it is up to the journalist to corroborate the information.

ISL 8y ago

I once was involved in a journalistic/fact-finding endeavor involving myriad confidential exchanges of information. One of the biggest lessons from the experience has been that a promise of confidentiality should be extended only when absolutely necessary. In aggregate, it would have been better to have a smaller amount of information that could be made public than a comprehensive set of information that remains restricted, perhaps forever. If I need to do such a thing again, I will make plain to each source, in writing when possible, that, while I am attempting to get to the truth and will treat their information with care, I may publish anything I learn, full stop.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
Sounds miserable, knowing the truth in detail and feeling forced to write half truths.
- ACow_Adonis 8y ago
  Isn't that basically the job description for most of us in economics/analytics/information/writing/consulting fields? /haha, only serious.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> If I need to do such a thing again, I will make plain to each source, in writing when possible, that, while I am attempting to get to the truth and will treat their information with care, I may publish anything I learn, full stop. I think the point you are missing is that people won't talk to journalists at all in the first place if they're on the record. You can put your foot down all you like and say 'it's all on the record' but then they'll just say 'ha ha ok no comment then' and you'll learn nothing.
- ISL 8y ago
  Agreed entirely; it seems like a bad idea, but the flip side is that anything they do feel comfortable sharing with you can be readily shared with others. That second fact, coupled with the reality that many people like to tell their own stories, at least in part, is more powerful than anything learned through anonymity. Viewed another way, if the goal is to get to the truth and share it, it is useless to learn an unshareable truth.

Waterluvian 8y ago

This article was really disappointing. It doesn't answer the only question I really want to read about: what happens when people break these rules?

mpclark 8y ago
For it to work there has to be a relationship at stake. If there is, it works every time.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > for it to work there has to be a relationship at stake And for this to have teeth, you need to (a) have relationships with multiple reporters and (b) provide recurring value. The first makes it possible to close off a reporter who misbehaves. The latter gives everyone an incentive to keep that from happening. Journalist-source relationships are political. They aren't governed by laws, but tradeoffs and customs.
  - CPLX 8y ago
    Or you can just hire a publicist that has a long term relationship. The effect can be similar.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Or you can just hire a publicist Unless you’re in the press every day, this hasn’t been—in my experience—worth it. Better to pick the relationships and delegate managing the messaging yourself.
ad_hominem 8y ago
They get hired by the New York Times? https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1025425088445702145 https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/102542508844570214...
- 8y ago

stefan_ 8y ago

In the NYTimes, off the record usually means a government official strategically "leaking" information following the government line, being granted anonymity by the paper because (?).

Atreus 8y ago

Most of the time, when spoken by those in power, it is a lie, and it really means "I'm trying to be deceptive". Most of the time, when requested by those with vulnerability, it is the gateway to critical, but potentially highly dangerous information, and a request for protection.

Atreus 8y ago
I think the "one company" media in the US has lost authoritativity and credibility with anyone who thinks. The media makes its money by keeping sheep as sheep, and leading them to the shearers or the slaughter. If it taught critical thought then someone who knows what a free market is would strongly oppose the single-source for news, and that monopoly would end. They would not make as much money with paid workers as they do with slaves - intellectually and cognitively speaking. Junk journalism would get junk revenue, not top billing.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > the "one company" media in the US has lost authoritativity and credibility with anyone who thinks I think quite a bit, and I greatly value many publications. The NYT in particular is an independent company, and so is not part of any 'one company' news media. That said, I do wish there was more diversity in ownership; in particular, I wish there were serious publications that served an audience besides the intellectual middle-upper class.
lobotryas 8y ago
That's exactly the kind of attitude that gets a person in trouble. I hope you find some shades of grey in your views. Bad people exist in all stripes of life and in all communities.

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

Delusion.

kpwagner 8y ago

First two words of the article: "President Trump" Is it possible for the news to cover anything without including an opinion about Trump--or his tweets? I am so turned off by this "style" of journalism where every piece includes an opinion (implied or explicit) about the president of the United States. Sad.

untog 8y ago
The reason for the article being written is that Trump broke an off the record agreement with the Times a few days ago.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  What does it even mean for a non-journalist to have an off-the-record agreement? If a interviewee asks a journalist that something be off the record, there is generally an expectation that it will not be reported on by the journalist. But does that mean that the interviewee can't talk about what the journalist said during the meeting? I'm interested in hearing what the specifics of the agreement were - whether they were phrased as "neither side talks about this", or if it was just phrased as an 'off the record meeting', which in my mind only applies to the journalist in the room.
  - kpwagner 8y ago
    I thought that term "off the record" was meant to protect sources, not journalists. Whatever the term was expected to mean by both parties, it kind of comes down to what leverage either side has to uphold the verbal agreement. The journalist has a lot to lose if they agree to be off the record, then report on that information. Does Trump care at all that NYT is throwing a toddler fit over his comments? We all know the answer to that one.
- gweinberg 8y ago
  Not only that, he stared directly into an eclipse!
  - 8y ago

jedberg 8y ago

I won't talk to journalists anymore. It never goes well. Even when I'm talking to a supposedly "friendly" journalist, they will cherry pick my words or "summarize the source" to fit their narrative, even if the meaning is the opposite of what I said. Journalists have a rule that they won't show their articles to sources before publication. I understand why that rule is necessary for adversarial sources, like when you're reporting a negative story on something a politician said. You don't want them to scoop you or try to change the narrative before your article gets out. But when you contact me asking me to explain a technical topic in detail because you don't understand it, why in the world would you not want to show me the article before publication, so that I can make sure you properly captured the nuance? Instead, they quote sentence one of two, where number two has important nuance to it, or they summarize the two sentences inaccurately, and then attach my name to it, making me look uniformed. Then I have to hop on the comments and defend myself, making me look bad and the journalist. In a world where sources can put comments on an article right next to an article, they really need to update their rules to differentiate between friendly and adversarial sources.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> they will cherry pick my words or "summarize the source" to fit their narrative They can't show you their articles, but you can ask them about their angle. If you disagree, it's fine to say "I don't want to be a part of that". If they trust you, they'll ask why not. If you have a proper argument, you'll flip their angle. (I have.) If you have a flimsy argument, and they respect you, they'll tell you why they disagree. And now you have a proper discussion, which I find is much more interesting than answering a series of questions. An important component is to have recurring value. If you're a one-off source, you'll have a bad time. If you can convince them you're of long-term value, now you have mutual leverage.
- jedberg 8y ago
  I tried that once. Their angle agreed with mine. Until the article came out and it had flipped. So either they flipped their angle after we spoke or they lied to me.

smsm42 8y ago

I expected an article about common journalist practices and I from the start I got an attack on Trump because of some (of a countless and never ending variety) beef they had with them instead. Of course, this could also be seen as "explaining some of our journalistic practices". I get it, good work.