Off the record: do you really know what it means?

By Fraser P. Seitel

published March 02

Fraser P. Seitel has been a communications consultant, author and teacher for 30 years.  He may be reached directly at yusake@aol.com.

“Never, ever go ‘off the record’.”

That is the mantra of most PR counselors.

Such advice is safe, sensible and wrong.

Going ‘off-the-record’ with a journalist can help cement an important relationship that can yield significant long-term dividends to an organisation.  On the other hand, categorically informing a journalist that you “refuse” to go off-the-record may be all the reporter needs to reinvigorate his investigation of what your organisation may be “hiding”.

So going off-the-record can occasionally be helpful.

But ………………

That said, and at the risk of confusing you irretrievably, the cardinal rule for a PR person must always be:

“There is no such thing as off-the-record.”

What this means is this:

If you don’t want to see it in print, don’t say it.  It’s that simple.  Despite what you may hear from others who don’t often deal with the press, most reporters are trustworthy.  Most of them, like the PR people with whom they deal, are working stiffs trying to support families by getting paid to do a job.

Some reporters, of course, are first class jerks.  But then so too are some PR people.

The problem with going off-the-record, however, lies in a failure for both sides to understand what the other means by the term.  The reporter may mean one thing by “off-the-record”, and the PR person might mean another.

That’s why the second cardinal rule is always to clarify the rules of engagement, i.e. define your terms, before you start the interview.

Toward that end, here is how some - I repeat, some - define the key interview terms.

On-the-record

This means “for quotation” by the person being interviewed.

This is the most usual format for an interview.  It also is the most honest and responsible way to conduct oneself with a reporter.  Executives should be counseled to consider that everything - yes, everything - they say to a reporter is “on-the-record”.  They will be quoted, and they should know it.  So they must be “on guard” throughout the meeting.

The corollary of this - and also what you must explain to executives - is:

“If you aren’t comfortable seeing it in print - don’t say it.”

On-the-record also suggests that whenever an interviewee wishes to go “off-the-record”, the interview must be interrupted and the reporter’s agreement attained, before continuing.  Unless the reporter agrees that “the following is off-the-record”, the interviewee should be counseled not to say it.

Not for Attribution

Technically, “not for attribution (NFA)” suggests that the material can be used but without naming the speaker.

Thus a source becomes a “ExxonMobil spokesperson” or “a Microsoft executive who preferred not to be named”.

The organisation’s name suggests the authenticity of the quote and can always be tracked back to the source.

Organisational policy statements, communicated through the media, often take the NFA form.

Henry Kissinger, when he was U.S. Secretary of State, was famous for insisting that he be referred to as “a high State Department official” in order to disguise his identity but, at the same time, deliver a credible message.  Following the Kissinger lead, press savvy government officials today frequently adopt this approach.

Background

Technically, “background” implies that the identity of the source must be further hidden.  Terms such as “a knowledgeable market observer” or “an influential telecom analyst” or “one Southern senator” are examples of speaking on “background”.

Purpose, of course, is to muddle the identity of the speaker enough so that the words can’t be traced back to him.  PR professionals use “background” to deliver anonymous messages to opponents, without the fear of being exposed.

One necessity in using this technique is to clarify - again, in advance - with a journalist exactly how you wish to be identified as a “background” source.  That way there will be no surprises when you read your quote in print.

Deep background

This means that your comments are even further divorced in that the reporter can’t attach the comments to anyone.  Rather, the journalist must paraphrase you and attribute the ideas to his or her own intuition or research.

Politicians advance this technique with journalists to “test” concepts in print.  Often, “deep background” is resorted to when forwarding a controversial idea or letting a little-known fact emerge in public.

The beauty of “deep background” is that the idea appears as an expression of the journalist’s own reasoning, rather than the self-interest of the originator.

Off-the-record

Strictly defined, this means “not for publication”.  A journalist can’t use it.  Graveyard.  Ixnay on the otequay.

In the Watergate tradition of Woodward and Bernstein, the only way a journalist is free to use your “off-the-record” information is if he gets it corroborated by a third party.  Then, by inference, he can quote the other party, but not you.

Understandably, the understanding of “off-the-record” has suffered the most fraying at the edges over the years.

Some take it to mean “between us” or “use with discretion”.  Jesse Jackson thought he was “off-the-record” when he referred to New York City as “Hymietown”.  Ronald Reagan thought he was “off-the-record” when he referred to White House reporters as “sons of bitches”.  Newt Gingrich’s mother thought she was “off-the-record” when she disparaged Hillary Clinton on network television.

The danger, of course, in not clarifying - in advance - what the reporter understands the definition of “off-the-record” to be is that you can be quoted saying something you’ll regret.  As too many have discovered too late, all the trust and credibility and guidance in the world can’t undo the damage done, when an interviewee realises that anything said is fair game to publish.

And if you don’t believe that, consider the final paragraph of a classic Wall Street Journal profile of reviled former Chicago banker A. Robert Abboud, who was headed to another bank in Texas:

“A Chicago executive, having offered one positive remark after another about Mr. Abboud, concludes a long interview with an odd request, “Please, don’t quote me”.

The executive, Robert P. Gwinn, chairman of Encyclopedia Britannica, was a First Chicago director when Mr. Abboud was fired.  Publicly praising Mr. Abboud, Mr. Gwinn says, might anger inner-circle Chicagoans.

“To the group I travel with now,” Mr. Gwinn explains, “Bob is sort of on their ‘S’ list.”