GOING OFF RECORD: "I Find The Whole Thing Icky..."

Some insights from the EWA listserve about the issue of whether the public is well-served when journalists go off record (used with permission):

"If your reporting is solid, your sources grow, over time, to respect you and tell you things – on the record...I think in a way it strengthens the professional relationship and doesn’t open the door to misunderstandings."

-- Jennifer Jordan, Providence Journal

"I find the whole thing icky, icky, icky. Basically, it's acknowledging, "We won't say the truth when we can be held to it publicly. Then we will only speak in soundbites."...I do think there are some instances for sources to go off the record. Whistleblowers are the most obvious. But the idea this should apply in the same way to the big policy conversations? Puke."

-- Linda Perlstein, EWA public editor

Staying on the record 100 percent of the time doesn't apply to all situations (ie, with kids, teachers, parents),  Not all journalists feel this way, and some don't seem to feel they can get the job done without going off record.  But they can, and I hope they will.

Comments

[Bernard]

Icky? How old is Perlstein, 4? Yes there are times when a knowledgeable source doesn't want to be quoted (not just whistle-blowers) but is willing to offer some leads or background information. Any journalist worth their salt would respect that and make good use of it.