Should “Off The Record” be Respected by Journalists?

March 8, 2008


Click here for the full video interview.

“She is a monster, too –- that is off the record –- she is stooping to anything,” said Obama campaign advisor Samantha Power during an interview with Britain’s Gerri Peev of The Scotsman. According to the full video interview above, it sounded like the comment was made as part of some light, introductory “small talk.” Still, Gerri Peev used that quick off-the-record comment as the crux of her article.

HILLARY Clinton has been branded a “monster” by one of Barack Obama’s top advisers, as the gloves come off in the race to win the Democrat nomination.

The article resulted in huge backlash from the Hillary Clinton campaign and ultimately resulted in Power’s resignation. And check out the 560 passionate comments already posted to Peev’s March 7 article.

Why would this journalist take it upon herself to print an off the record statement when the interview was meant to discuss Power’s new book? Was it merely a media culture clash? Was it just bad timing because Power said “off the record” after the statement instead of before? Was it the reporter’s selfish attempt to capture some attention? Was it because the journalist saw no value in maintaining a relationship with Power and, therefore, had no reason to respect the request? What do you think?

For non-PR professionals, “off the record” is a classic media relations tactic used to privately provide context and new story angles or leads to journalists. Think attorney-client privilege for journalists and their sources. Similar to other popular media relations tactics like the embargo and exclusive, “off the record” has the potential to backfire because the agreement is only as strong as the reporter’s word.

Having done a ton of media relations work on both the agency and client sides, I’ve heard a variety of opinions on using “off the record.” Some media trainers instruct clients that everything is on the record and to never use the tactic. Others swear by it as a way to build reporter relationships and source opportunities. I’ve managed dozens of interviews where the “off the record” request has come up - including instances where it was said before and after the “off” statement. I’ve also facilitated entire 40-minute conversations that were off the record. Fortunately, every reporter respected the requests and no crisis management was necessary.

In my opinion, journalists are smart to respect them as long as they value the source. I’ve heard a handful of off-the-record-gone-bad stories to know some journalists will still print everything you say. As always, proceed with caution. Probably the safest rule of thumb is to only use “off the record” with reporters you know and trust. Otherwise, maintain the “everything is on the record” approach to interviews.

What do you think? On this subject matter, I’d love to hear from some PR bloggers on both sides of the pond, such as Neville, Defren, Geoff, Scott, Kami, David, Stephen, Kevin, Gerry, Brendan, Ben, Brian, Lee, Richard, etc.

If you liked this post, you may also enjoy...

Posted by toddand | Filed Under Educational, Management, Media, Politics, Public Relations, Strategies+Tactics 

Comments

15 Responses to “Should “Off The Record” be Respected by Journalists?”

    MyAvatars 0.2
  2. Public Relations Nightmares » Blog Archive » Should “Off The Record” be Respected by Journalists? on March 8th, 2008 10:40 pm

    [...] post by toddand Share These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web [...]

    3. MyAvatars 0.2
  4. Strive Notes » No ‘off the record’ on March 9th, 2008 3:17 am

    [...] the issue has surfaced again when Obama campaign advisor Samantha Power said it during an interview with Britain’s Gerri Peev of The… She called Mrs Clinton a monster ‘off the record’ and was not best pleased when the [...]

    5. MyAvatars 0.2
  6. Gerry on March 9th, 2008 6:16 am

    Is it a just case of timing meets a journo-on-the-make? I mean, while the world’s eyes are trained on Hillary’s alleged demise, will this tartan journo ever get a more gilt-edged opp for self-promotion? And how much does she need to stay on good terms with the naeive Power? But you gotta say, as a piece of ‘warm up’ chat the ‘monster’ quote was a beaut`- whatever happened to chatting about the weather (after all, its a perennial topic in my ex-home of Scotland!).

    7. MyAvatars 0.2
  8. toddand on March 9th, 2008 8:02 am

    Thanks, Gerry, for chiming in. To me, referencing Hillary as a “monster” is no big deal - playful banter. Certainly not deserving of a resignation. Although, isn’t “monster” a very unique topic in Scotland, the land of Loch Ness? Perhaps that word takes on a whole new meaning over there! :-)

    9. MyAvatars 0.2
  10. Kevin Dugan on March 9th, 2008 8:14 am

    Todd - Good question. The annswer is never easy.
    .
    1) Never say anything to a journalist that you do not want to see in the media.

    2) She’s on a book promo tour, wanting more than anything to promote her book. Perhaps she was already going to resign?

    3) Every journalist is different. If you really want to go off the record AND have them respect your wishes (this was not one of those instances in my opinion) check with them first. It is possible to do, but not a smart tact to take.

    11. MyAvatars 0.2
  12. Scott on March 9th, 2008 8:17 am

    Hi Toddy-woddy! I go off the records in only two situations:

    1. I know and trust the reporter, and thus know our agreement will not be violated; or

    2. I don’t really care if the “off the record” statement is used or not; I just want to plant a seed with the interviewer, such as when criticizing a competitor. Sometimes it feels more appropriate to call a comment “off the record,” even though you know the reporter might not use it that way.

    13. MyAvatars 0.2
  14. toddand on March 9th, 2008 8:30 am

    Kevin - I thought about your No. 2 as well - maybe this whole thing was orchestrated to generate publicity for the book. However, I imagine Power would have chosen more aggressive off-the-record terms and statements if she was planning something. Monster? No big deal in my book.

    Scotty-wotty - Your No. 2 is a great point. Was that comment meant to be off the record though?

    Speaking of which, it seems like many bloggers are paranoid about being quoted ‘off the record’ in social media when they exchange private emails. I can’t tell you how many times I see emails from bloggers who include a signature line instructing me that the email was “private and not bloggable.”

    It’s a shame that we don’t all share the same standards and ask first before posting something that was originally intended to be private.

    And when we attend new media conferences, watch out! Practically everything you say and do is on the record with all the live blogging, photographing and video recording.

    15. MyAvatars 0.2
  16. Scott on March 9th, 2008 10:55 am

    Oh shit, you mean you actually published my comment? Guess I’ll have to turn in my resignation to my boss — who would gladly accept it if he could.

    17. MyAvatars 0.2
  18. Daniel on March 9th, 2008 12:29 pm

    Any good reporter will tell you that an agreement should be made before you start your interview. As a reporter myself, I feel there has to be some sort of agreement as to content that’s “off the record,” what’s “background” and what’s “on the record” before the interview starts. As a source, you can’t start an interview and then just blurt out whatever you want…then claiming something’s “off the record.”

    In Ms. Power’s case, an agreement was not made between herself and the reporter, so the quote is fair game. When she realized she shouldn’t have made that comment, she said it was off the record.

    Sorry, no dice. As a campaign worker, she should’ve at least tried to explain it. (Maybe she did. I wasn’t there.)

    19. MyAvatars 0.2
  20. Daniel on March 9th, 2008 12:30 pm

    Sorry, bad grammar. Meant to say “As a source, you can’t start an interview and then just blurt out whatever you want…and then claim something is ‘off the record.’ “

    21. MyAvatars 0.2
  22. toddand on March 9th, 2008 1:17 pm

    Wow, Daniel. Is it really that cut and dry? You’d run anything a source said to you if it wasn’t clearly stated as background or off the record beforehand?!

    23. MyAvatars 0.2
  24. Geoff Livingston on March 9th, 2008 6:03 pm

    Todd:

    There is nothing that is ever off the record. I’ve heard journalists publishing casual off-hour dinner conversations in which unexpected, juicy details were revealed. If you don’t want it in print, don’t say it around a journalist… or online for that matter!

    Great post and thanks for brining up the topic.

    GL

    25. MyAvatars 0.2
  26. Daniel on March 9th, 2008 6:06 pm

    Of course it depends. But in this case, she knew she said something stupid and professional. Saying it’s “off the record” after the fact, in this case, doesn’t make up for it.

    If it were a regular source I use all the time, maybe I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. But in this case, for this seemingly innocuous interview, to say something like that… it’s damn sure on the record, especially as there’s nothing hazy about the remark.

    27. MyAvatars 0.2
  28. Daniel on March 9th, 2008 6:06 pm

    *unprofessional.

    29. MyAvatars 0.2
  30. Craig Klein on March 10th, 2008 1:37 pm

    Todd - you’ve got some brilliant readers! Excellent commentary on your insightful article.

    I think Scott summed it up sucinctly. Its a transaction based upon trust. The journalist always has the opportunity to weigh the benefits of maintaining that trust against the benefits of running wth the story.

Got something to say?