4 ms·

Protecting your source and keeping stuff off the record only counts when your source is passing on information about a story, not when your source is the story.

Protecting your source and keeping stuff off the record only counts when your source is passing on information about a story, not when your source is the story. edit - for example, if a journalist is investigating a crime and you offer to give them information as long as it stays off the record and they agree, but then you tell them you committed the crime they are trying to investigate, they have no obligation whatsoever to keep what you said to them off the record.

zaroth 12y ago
No. Once you agree you are talking off the record, there's no going back on that. In this case, however, I don't think anyone has claimed that Guardian reporters were off the record. What makes this an interesting case study in journalism ethics is that they weren't off the record, but whether you can ethically act in your capacity as a journalist in the middle of strategic business negotiations. The two are opposing interests, so to the extent I think I'm in a business meeting with The Guardian Company I'm probably also not thinking I'm the lead in their next story. To turn it around a bit more, would it be OK for Guardian to go into Whisper under false pretenses, knowing they have no interest in a partnership, but in order to gather facts for a story? Surely they are entitled to do that form of investigative reporting, but likewise they shouldn't be surprised if that blows back on them the next time they want to form a strategic partnership with someone.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  "No. Once you agree you are talking off the record, there's no going back on that." Of course there is, for instance if someone was threatening to harm you or others, it really wouldn't matter if you had agreed to keep things off the record. There is a difference between professional discretion and complicity. edit - you described the tactics they possibly used and the potential strategic blowback, but ethically you answered your question for yourself already when you conceded that they are entitled to do that form of investigative reporting. They are a newspaper.

zaroth 12y ago

No. Once you agree you are talking off the record, there's no going back on that. In this case, however, I don't think anyone has claimed that Guardian reporters were off the record. What makes this an interesting case study in journalism ethics is that they weren't off the record, but whether you can ethically act in your capacity as a journalist in the middle of strategic business negotiations. The two are opposing interests, so to the extent I think I'm in a business meeting with The Guardian Company I'm probably also not thinking I'm the lead in their next story. To turn it around a bit more, would it be OK for Guardian to go into Whisper under false pretenses, knowing they have no interest in a partnership, but in order to gather facts for a story? Surely they are entitled to do that form of investigative reporting, but likewise they shouldn't be surprised if that blows back on them the next time they want to form a strategic partnership with someone.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
"No. Once you agree you are talking off the record, there's no going back on that." Of course there is, for instance if someone was threatening to harm you or others, it really wouldn't matter if you had agreed to keep things off the record. There is a difference between professional discretion and complicity. edit - you described the tactics they possibly used and the potential strategic blowback, but ethically you answered your question for yourself already when you conceded that they are entitled to do that form of investigative reporting. They are a newspaper.