The Inlander/May 2010
Editors and reporters must be prepared to confront situations where individuals ask to speak “off the record.” That’s especially the case when writing about sensitive and challenging subjects.
Consider a tip from an assistant in City Hall who just typed a letter ratifying a severance agreement for a department head who is resigning under fire. Or consider a person who alerts the newspaper to the fact that a neighbor is going to volunteer his property as a potential landfill site.
It’s a good bet that neither individual wants to attach his or her name to the initial public announcement of this news. Yet, both items are newsworthy and deserve to be made known to the broader community in a timely fashion.
These two examples also underscore a point common to many stories that result from the use of confidential sources: The information is likely public under most state data privacy laws. Besides, it’s only a matter of time before a public body will formally release the information. Newspapers are doing their jobs, and gain more credibility, if they flush out and report the stories when they are timely – and newsworthy – rather than letting authorities manage the news to their advantage.
Sources most often request to go “off the record.” But reporters also must be prepared to negotiate requests by individuals to speak “on background” or “not for attribution.”
“Off the record” usually means the information is for a reporter’s understanding only. Reporters may leverage the knowledge to get other facts, but should not use the original information because to reveal it would compromise and might prove troublesome for the source.
“On background” usually means a newspaper may not use a source’s name but may identify the person in terms of an organization — such as “a company source” or “a city official.”
“Not for attribution” usually means specific information cannot be linked even indirectly to individuals because they might be identified. The story often might be reported, “This newspaper has learned … .”
The operative word in all of these definitions is “usually,” which underscores the most important point for all concerned – that both reporters and sources must have a common understanding about the request. Sources might see nuances among the three variations, but the bottom line is their desire not to be linked to “breaking the story,” especially if the information is deemed sensitive.
It’s important that reporters not automatically stop an interview or resign themselves that they’ll not get a story when such requests are made. Reporters should not agree to anything immediately. Rather, they should continue the conversation to gain as much background as possible.
At the end of the talk, they should review the information with the individual and see if some things can be attributed to them. One of the most persuasive arguments in stories of a “public” nature – something that will be acted upon by a public body in a public setting – is that the facts will be made known in any event. The public body and the newspaper both will gain credibility if they deliver the sensitive news as soon as it occurs.
It goes to the old good news/bad news scenario. City administration will call a local newspaper immediately upon learning it has received a significant federal grant for a civic project, even if the formal announcement will not be presented to the city council until its next meeting. But the details of employee discipline will not be released until a public body meets, even if the deal was struck a week earlier and the person is off the job.
Often, requests to go “off the record” – to withhold information until its official release – are made because the information has not been circulated among employees.
The argument by reporters to avoid going “off the record” – that the information will become public eventually – is more easily advanced when dealing with issues deemed public under state law. The termination of a public employee is a clear example.
But the reality is that the information – especially “unwelcome” news – spreads rapidly in all cases. In fact, a company’s decision to lay off a hundred employees likely is more newsworthy and has far greater impact on a community than the discipline of a city department head. If a newspaper has received a tip, especially in small towns, there’s a great likelihood that it’s common knowledge on the street. Newspapers should work with key community individuals in both public and private sectors to make it “best practice” to release good and bad news as soon as possible.
The entire community will benefit from an honest and open exchange of all information, and newspapers likely will face fewer requests to go “off the record.
