Journalists know better than anyone that words are, well, just words. They’re to be taken at face value – unless, of course, they mean something else.
Confused? You have the right to be, especially if you’ve ever been asked a question “off the record” only to find out that what you said is circulating around the public. What you said was meant to stay between you and the reporter, but it didn’t stop there.
What’s going on here and why doesn’t “off the record” mean what it seems like it should?
Good cop, bad cop
During a TV cop drama, a detective will grill his suspect or witness using the “off the record” trick to reveal a detailed, informative answer. He can’t use the response in a court, but, like any good dramatized officer, he’ll utilize his newfound knowledge to get to the bottom of things by circumventing traditional methods.
Minus the built-in drama and flashy graphics, real life reporters also use this trick. By engaging in friendly conversation without a notebook or recorder in hand, a journalist might casually ask a question “off the record.”
The reporter is looking for you to confirm a query or a suspicion that he will verify elsewhere, often simply as an “anonymous” source. You probably won’t find your words published verbatim, but you might find out that trade secrets or future product information you’ve only discussed with one reporter show up in his outlet.
Many major newspapers’ style guides and codes of ethics limit their reporters from quoting anonymous sources, especially in the wake of troubling accounts like the Washington Post’s Jason Blair, who famously made up sources and fabricated quotes.
But just because they won’t use this shortcut doesn’t mean that reporters won’t go behind your back to find someone else to whom they can attribute the information. Speaking with another representative of your firm, a reporter will indicate that he knows something that shouldn’t be made public. This other representative might share even more details since he thinks that the reporter is privy only to information you want to be “on the record.”
Manipulating “off the record” comments is a journalism trick that will help net an “exclusive,” so you can’t blame a reporter for trying. Instead, take a holistic approach to the way you word your interview responses and “off the record” discussions.
Solutions
Your best bet is simply to not share information that you don’t want getting out to the public. Deception isn’t your friend, but it is often necessary to keep certain things private for a period of time. Keep quiet and say that you “can’t share those details at this time.”
There are mutually ways to work around the “off the record” situation. If you know the journalist well and are on a friendly basis with them, you might want to consider sharing “off the record” information while explaining the reason you don’t want what you’ve said to show up in print or online. In addition to keeping the information private, this dialog between you and the reporter might further solidify a relationship, and it will help the reporter reach a more in-depth understanding of your perspective.
Alternatively, many companies take advantage of product information embargoes to ensure that classified information doesn’t leak out early. Inviting journalists to a detailed technical presentation or even a light preview gives them insider details, but asking them to sign a waiver – isn’t even really legally binding – can benefit everyone. Reporters get an even playing field while they feel like embedded members of the media and you get the timing you want on the information the public needs – if not quite yet.
