JOURNALISM: Better Off Record?

In this recent post (Just Between Us...), Eduwonk Andy Rotherham makes the case against "on the record" conversations.  Going off the record more often would make for better journalism and a better-informed public, says professor Rotherham. 

From where I sit, the problem isn't that policymakers and advocates can't talk with candor or nuance on the record, in groups or solo; it's that some of them are getting out of the habit.  They aren't made to.  They don't like to.  Why should they?  It makes it so much harder to control what gets reported.  It puts the reporter on equal footing with the (often powerful) source.  It's convenient self-interest disguised as a favor.

The solution isn't to dummy down what gets reported with more off-the-record conversations.  Instead, let's get sources back in the habit of knowing that if they don't want to talk for attribution a journalist will find someone else who will. There's no shortage of knowledgeable sources out there. [And let's make sure reporters are held accountable for getting the full meaning of a source's statement, not just the sound bite.]

Comments

[Robert]

There's plenty of middle ground here that serves both ends--better information and better journalism. Reporters can (and do) talk to sources off the record to inform their pieces, but there's no obligation to quote those folks, even without attribution. It's a form of calling a bluff., really. If you (the source) are truly concerned about the direction of my piece, speaking for background gives you the chance to be the hand that guides the pen, but not to settle scores, bomb-throw, etc. in a blind quote and that should suffice. There's also a way to do this in a way that makes the source comfortable and candid, and leaves room to go in either direction. You agree to speak informally, or background. "If you say something I want to use," you might tell the source, "I'll ask you if I can use it on the record. You can always say no and I'll honor that." Then the source has the benefit of being able to speak candidly and some control over what words will appear next to his or her name. If he wants to stay on background, the good idea or insight still makes itinto the story. And 95% of the time, the comfort of knowing what the reporter wants to quote makes the difference between a source being willing to go on the record, or not trusting the reporter not to make him look foolish.

And by the way, A-Rus, Stop dummying down the phrase "dumb down."

[Claus]

The recent faux pas over at the Washington Post--which invited paying sponsors to attend exclusive and "non-confrontational" dinners with journalists and policymakers at the publisher's house--suggests that we should worry a bit about these off-the-record conversations. In this case, the moneyed, the media and the policymakers formed an unholy trinity that should worry those not invited to such meetings. Rotherham has a point about candor in journalism, but Robert offers a compelling alternative scenario.

We should be careful to make sure that the conditions for candor don't undermine our goals for public engagement.