On or Off the Record?

There are several ways to do interviews with a reporter or reporters: you can be “on the record” where your name is attributed and usually quotes or first person audio/video are used; you can provide a “backgrounder” that is usually requested by media for more detailed information than they would use in a time sensitive story and is on the record

OR

you can be an “unnamed source” which reporters would prefer not to use but do given the value of the information they get; and you can be “off the record” wherein whatever you say cannot be attributed back to you.

But are you really safe in going “off the record” and is it a good idea?

Sometimes a potential interview subject will want to talk only “off the record” or during an interview declare “this is off the record” (believing that it cannot be used) to skirt touchy issues. In my experience this is usually when an individual wants to get something off his or her chest but is not willing to allow his or her name to be used due to concern for privacy, job security, discipline, violating policy, or just wants anonymity for personal reasons, e.g. avoidance of confrontation, fearful, etc.  Regardless of the reason, the premise is the information you have can not be attributed back to you.

I submit that this is bad practice and should be avoided by almost everyone for a couple of reasons...

The reporter wants you on the record because it adds credibility to his or her story to have an attributed—and verifiable—source; being “off the record” or an “unidentified source” does not guarantee you any real protection. The reporter may not want to burn sources for their own reputation or potential future work with you but if the information is important enough to the story, you will get burned. And if you want to be off the record or “cannot use my name” because of your worry of being an attributed source, then simply do not do the interview.

But it is notable that more unnamed and off the record interviews are happening. I am willing to bet that most on the bus with General Stan McCrystal and the Rolling Stone magazine reporter believed they were “off the record.” Many are also turning to social media to vent their issues and concerns because it is so easy to remain anonymous. Or are you?

Many believe they are shielded from being named by just saying “off the record” or remain anonymous by using a ficticious name in social media. Until better legal safeguards are put in place and enforced, I believe we are more vulnerable than ever. Evidence of this includes the likes of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation or “SLAPPs”, the Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier or “CIPAV”, and the un-empathetic tech savvy geeks (not used in the pejorative sense here) posting anonymous viral outings that are becoming commonplace, much less the criminal minds.

So, unless you have good legal advice always at hand I recommend doing two SIMPLE (emphasis added) things:

#1 - Be careful in the words you choose to use.

“It’s so simple to be wise—just think of something stupid to say and say the opposite.”

                                                                                                       - Sam Levenson

#2 - Stay “on the record” and just do not talk about things you do not wanted attributed to you.

“Never pass up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.” 
                                                     - Winston Churchill

Going “off the record” is tantamount to ‘going off the ranch.’  You just do not want to do it because once you are ‘off’ you really do not know where you are. For sure you will not like it if “it” gets back as being from you.

Takeaway:  It is NOT a good idea and it is NOT safe to be “off the record.”