What do reporters mean when they say that someone "declined to speak on the record?"
January 18, 2012 10:06 AM Subscribe
Help me understand a bit of journalese. When reporters say in an article that someone "declined to speak on the record" (which is a phrase that crops up very often) is the journalist indicating that the person in question was interviewed off the record and that the journalist used these off-the-record statements to write the article?
I believe it means that the person being interviewed doesn't want to be identified.
posted by littlesq at 10:16 AM on January 18, 2012
posted by littlesq at 10:16 AM on January 18, 2012
I think it depends. If they say something like, "...although White House sources declined to speak on the record," then I would assumed that those sources may have provided information but didn't want to by quoted.
If they were to say, "...but department head Jim Smith declined to speak on the record," I would assume that they included this to show that Jim Smith was, in fact, questioned, but would not provide information since it was for an on-the-record interview and he would be quoted.
posted by Nightman at 10:20 AM on January 18, 2012
If they were to say, "...but department head Jim Smith declined to speak on the record," I would assume that they included this to show that Jim Smith was, in fact, questioned, but would not provide information since it was for an on-the-record interview and he would be quoted.
posted by Nightman at 10:20 AM on January 18, 2012
Basically it means they can't be identified. There are different levels of identification and attribution. They can be fully identified (on the record). The material can be used without their identity being made public (off the record). The material can be used without anything about their identity being used (as in "a source said") -- which is not usually done because it doesn't carry over much credibility to the readership. And then there's where the source is giving info to a journalist that they cannot publish -- the value in this is that they can then use their knowledge of the info to hunt down other sources who can independently give them the info (with an ok to publish) and then use the info.
posted by DoubleLune at 10:35 AM on January 18, 2012
posted by DoubleLune at 10:35 AM on January 18, 2012
Response by poster: I should have clarified. I'm aware what it means when the person isn't identified explicitly, e.g. "White House sources declined to speak on the record." What I'm interested in is when the person is identified, as in this article about former White House chief of staff Bill Daley, about whom it is said: "Daley declined to speak on the record for this piece"
Is the reporter, Paul Starobin, saying that Daley spoke with him but that Starobin cannot use any direct quotes in the piece, but nonetheless Starobin bases some of the article on what Daley said to him?
posted by Kattullus at 10:42 AM on January 18, 2012
Is the reporter, Paul Starobin, saying that Daley spoke with him but that Starobin cannot use any direct quotes in the piece, but nonetheless Starobin bases some of the article on what Daley said to him?
posted by Kattullus at 10:42 AM on January 18, 2012
Daley could have spoken to the reporter, with the stipulation that nothing he said could be quoted directly or linked to him. Or he might not have spoken to the journalist at all. Use of the phrase "declined to speak on the record" is a little wink to the reader--or it could be that the reporter wants to imply that the person did speak but not for attribution. Personally, I think blind quotes mean the journalist couldn't really get the story.
posted by Ideefixe at 10:58 AM on January 18, 2012
posted by Ideefixe at 10:58 AM on January 18, 2012
That would strongly suggest that Daley did, in fact, speak to the reporter and offer some comment about the reporter's findings. It doesn't really make it clear if anything the reporter says is actually drawing on those off-the-record comments, although it implies, at the least, that they helped inform the overall portrait the reporter is drawing. If Daley had simply declined to comment or refused to talk with the reporter the disclaimer would normally make that clear ("We contacted Mr. Daley's office for this story but they declined to comment." etc.).
posted by yoink at 11:01 AM on January 18, 2012
posted by yoink at 11:01 AM on January 18, 2012
I don't have any inside knowledge but I am just as likely to think that the person refused to speak to them at all.
posted by RustyBrooks at 11:40 AM on January 18, 2012
posted by RustyBrooks at 11:40 AM on January 18, 2012
It means that someone made off the record comments, and is distinct from "declined to comment" or "declined to be interviewed for this story."
In stories I've written, it was often a compromise between, "If you don't talk to me, I'll report that you didn't talk to me and people will assume that the allegations are true," and them not wanting to say anything at all.
(One of a reporter's best weapons is the ability to make people look like assholes for not commenting on damaging allegations.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:49 AM on January 18, 2012
In stories I've written, it was often a compromise between, "If you don't talk to me, I'll report that you didn't talk to me and people will assume that the allegations are true," and them not wanting to say anything at all.
(One of a reporter's best weapons is the ability to make people look like assholes for not commenting on damaging allegations.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:49 AM on January 18, 2012
it's important to always consider who's reporting it and where it's being reported. a known trick is to write your inflammatory article, and then 5 minutes before you go to press, leave a voicemail for a person who could refute it, telling them to call you back if they want to add anything, knowing full well they probably won't have time. the gossip rags use this trick a lot but it's certainly seeped into more "real" news reporting too.
posted by nadawi at 12:21 PM on January 18, 2012
posted by nadawi at 12:21 PM on January 18, 2012
It means that someone made off the record comments
No. Not necessarily. Ideefix has the right answer here: Daley could have spoken to the reporter, with the stipulation that nothing he said could be quoted directly or linked to him. Or he might not have spoken to the journalist at all.
You really can't tell which it is. Strictly speaking, there are four or five possibilities, and the journalist should be more precise and transparent than the quote in question in this post:
1. The journalist tries to reach the source, but is unable to connect. That becomes "The NewsPaper was unable to reach SourceName" in time for this edition."
2. The journalist reached the source, the source declined to speak to the journalist at all. So: "When contacted by the NewsPaper, SourceName declined to comment."
3. The journalist reached the source, the source talked off the record but declined to go on the record. This could go several ways, including "SourceName declined to comment on the record." The writer would say this only when in the context of the story, the source clearly should have been contacted (because they are mentioned in the story as the subject of some accusation or whatever), and not mentioning any contact would be a gap. However, very often people are contacted that are NOT named in the story, but who talk to reporters off the record, provide valuable information, and are not named in the story at all. As noted in Miko's post linked above, however, when an interview goes "off the record", recording and note-taking stops, and the ground rules are that the information can't be used in the story. The reporter can use it, however, if they get someone else to provide it on the record.
4. As a variation of No. 3, sometimes a source will talk on the record but with the understanding there won't be direct quotations. That may or may not be noted in the story. The reporter can just paraphrase, and might add something like, "SourceName spoke with NewsPaper on the record but declined to be quoted directly."
5. Sometimes, a source will provide information with the understanding that it can be used but not attributed. Generally in government parlance this is "on background." So it becomes, "White House sources, speaking on background, said..." They can't be quoted, or named, but the information can be paraphrased and the source very generally characterized.
And then of course there are outright leaks, which may or may not be authorized, but where the understanding is that no hint will be given of where it might have come from. That becomes, "NewsPaper has learned..." "Sources have indicated to NewPaper..." etc.
Wikipedia has a pretty good page with additional sourcing nuances. (Just for today on Wikipedia, stop your browser from loading before the black SOPA message pops up.)
posted by beagle at 12:41 PM on January 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
No. Not necessarily. Ideefix has the right answer here: Daley could have spoken to the reporter, with the stipulation that nothing he said could be quoted directly or linked to him. Or he might not have spoken to the journalist at all.
You really can't tell which it is. Strictly speaking, there are four or five possibilities, and the journalist should be more precise and transparent than the quote in question in this post:
1. The journalist tries to reach the source, but is unable to connect. That becomes "The NewsPaper was unable to reach SourceName" in time for this edition."
2. The journalist reached the source, the source declined to speak to the journalist at all. So: "When contacted by the NewsPaper, SourceName declined to comment."
3. The journalist reached the source, the source talked off the record but declined to go on the record. This could go several ways, including "SourceName declined to comment on the record." The writer would say this only when in the context of the story, the source clearly should have been contacted (because they are mentioned in the story as the subject of some accusation or whatever), and not mentioning any contact would be a gap. However, very often people are contacted that are NOT named in the story, but who talk to reporters off the record, provide valuable information, and are not named in the story at all. As noted in Miko's post linked above, however, when an interview goes "off the record", recording and note-taking stops, and the ground rules are that the information can't be used in the story. The reporter can use it, however, if they get someone else to provide it on the record.
4. As a variation of No. 3, sometimes a source will talk on the record but with the understanding there won't be direct quotations. That may or may not be noted in the story. The reporter can just paraphrase, and might add something like, "SourceName spoke with NewsPaper on the record but declined to be quoted directly."
5. Sometimes, a source will provide information with the understanding that it can be used but not attributed. Generally in government parlance this is "on background." So it becomes, "White House sources, speaking on background, said..." They can't be quoted, or named, but the information can be paraphrased and the source very generally characterized.
And then of course there are outright leaks, which may or may not be authorized, but where the understanding is that no hint will be given of where it might have come from. That becomes, "NewsPaper has learned..." "Sources have indicated to NewPaper..." etc.
Wikipedia has a pretty good page with additional sourcing nuances. (Just for today on Wikipedia, stop your browser from loading before the black SOPA message pops up.)
posted by beagle at 12:41 PM on January 18, 2012 [2 favorites]
My personal experience in dealing with journalists (no offense to any journalists posting here!) is that there is no such thing as "off the record", even if the person being interviewed requests it. I've asked to speak "off the record" in the past and had my name in the paper nonetheless. Reading a line like that, I would assume that the person in question declined to speak to the journalist at all.
posted by LN at 12:50 PM on January 18, 2012
posted by LN at 12:50 PM on January 18, 2012
LN, off the record does not mean they won't mention you -- it's supposed to mean they won't quote you or directly attribute claims or facts to you. If a reporter breaks that promise to you, in real world terms that should mean you never trust them again. They may or may not care, depending on your value to them, of course.
If it's a rinky-dink rag, of course, that's one thing, but the WaPo -- of Watergate passim -- probably means precisely one thing when it uses a phrase like that. And the way Washington works, quotes, attributions, information, and so forth are all currency. Before they get to that point of saying one of the key phrases, there is very often a little dance of barter or power negotiation, much more subtle than that 5-minute voicemail window. Your Rahm Emanuels and Bill Daleys are going to be masters of this little quadrille.
I really think that "declined to comment" has a tendency to look bad for the person named, so they may well agree to a named "off the record" just to indicate that they weren't as cagey as all that. Sometimes, in political terms, you want people to know where the bullet came from, and sometimes you don't.
posted by dhartung at 2:59 PM on January 18, 2012
If it's a rinky-dink rag, of course, that's one thing, but the WaPo -- of Watergate passim -- probably means precisely one thing when it uses a phrase like that. And the way Washington works, quotes, attributions, information, and so forth are all currency. Before they get to that point of saying one of the key phrases, there is very often a little dance of barter or power negotiation, much more subtle than that 5-minute voicemail window. Your Rahm Emanuels and Bill Daleys are going to be masters of this little quadrille.
I really think that "declined to comment" has a tendency to look bad for the person named, so they may well agree to a named "off the record" just to indicate that they weren't as cagey as all that. Sometimes, in political terms, you want people to know where the bullet came from, and sometimes you don't.
posted by dhartung at 2:59 PM on January 18, 2012
I've asked to speak "off the record" in the past and had my name in the paper nonetheless.
This may be because that's not what off the record means. It sounds like you think it's a synonym for Anonymous. That's not the case.
It's wise for an infrequent interviewee to clarify this stuff with the reporter.
posted by jgirl at 3:43 PM on January 18, 2012
This may be because that's not what off the record means. It sounds like you think it's a synonym for Anonymous. That's not the case.
It's wise for an infrequent interviewee to clarify this stuff with the reporter.
posted by jgirl at 3:43 PM on January 18, 2012
"Declined to speak on the record" is journalese bullshit that reporters use to mean almost anything. It can mean the person spoke to some degree of "off the record" (more on that later), it can mean that the person gave vague details, it can mean the person didn't say anything at all, it can mean their PR person turned it down, it can mean - it shouldn't mean this but it can - that they never returned calls.
Here's what reporters actually use, in my experience, or at least are supposed to. It's on the reporter to stipulate which it is, generally:
"Off the record" = No putting it in the story. Period. It's for the reporter's knowledge and understanding only.
"On background" = No attributing it to the source, but you can bring up the information with other sources, allude to it in the story, etc.
Anonymous source = Exactly what it says; you can put it in the story, even as a quote, but you can't name names.
Note that these are by no means 100% agreed-upon definitions. This article shows just how nebulous it all is, and it was written two decades ago before Internet journalism made things even murkier.
posted by dekathelon at 4:34 PM on January 18, 2012
Here's what reporters actually use, in my experience, or at least are supposed to. It's on the reporter to stipulate which it is, generally:
"Off the record" = No putting it in the story. Period. It's for the reporter's knowledge and understanding only.
"On background" = No attributing it to the source, but you can bring up the information with other sources, allude to it in the story, etc.
Anonymous source = Exactly what it says; you can put it in the story, even as a quote, but you can't name names.
Note that these are by no means 100% agreed-upon definitions. This article shows just how nebulous it all is, and it was written two decades ago before Internet journalism made things even murkier.
posted by dekathelon at 4:34 PM on January 18, 2012
"No. Not necessarily. Ideefix has the right answer here: Daley could have spoken to the reporter, with the stipulation that nothing he said could be quoted directly or linked to him. Or he might not have spoken to the journalist at all."
No, if Daley declined to speak at all with the paper, the correct sentence is that "Daley declined to comment." "Declined" modifies "on the record," not "commented," as the simpler construction is less ambiguous.
I suppose we could be getting into what it should mean versus what it can mean — it can mean that Daley didn't say anything at all, but if so, that's an incorrect usage by the reporter.
posted by klangklangston at 12:30 AM on January 19, 2012 [1 favorite]
No, if Daley declined to speak at all with the paper, the correct sentence is that "Daley declined to comment." "Declined" modifies "on the record," not "commented," as the simpler construction is less ambiguous.
I suppose we could be getting into what it should mean versus what it can mean — it can mean that Daley didn't say anything at all, but if so, that's an incorrect usage by the reporter.
posted by klangklangston at 12:30 AM on January 19, 2012 [1 favorite]
The correct sentence is "Daley declined to comment," yes, but the continued existence of copy desks despite newspapers' best efforts suggests that reporters on tight deadlines don't always use the correct sentences.
posted by dekathelon at 7:12 AM on January 19, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by dekathelon at 7:12 AM on January 19, 2012 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by steinsaltz at 10:16 AM on January 18, 2012