🖋️Off The Record, On Background & Other Journalist Secret Codes
Magic spells for talking with media: Context Collapse #149
In this issue: Asking a journalist not to write something/Asking a journalist not to quote you/When they listen and when they don’t/What to do if something goes wrong.
Journalists, like any other specialist occupation, have their own lingo they use when talking with civilians on the job and which sources use when talking to them.
“Off the record,” “on background” and all those other codes which, in theory, turn a journalist’s note taking ability into on, off and hold modes when they’re speaking with the public.
In theory, they’re magic words like “Abracadabra” or “Hocus Pocus” which make a journalist follow your bidding. In real life, it’s more complicated.
Moreso, movies and TV shows make them sound interesting. I assure you, as a longtime journalist who now makes money advising companies how to shill their goods… They aren’t.
But, but, but… If you interact with journalists with any sort of regularity, they’re important to know.
This post is presented by Ungerleider Works. Ungerleider Works is NOT a PR firm; it’s a communications consulting firm that works with PR/advertising/marketing agencies and in-house communications departments on things like video scripts, white papers and newsletter/podcast strategy. Learn more about working with them here.
Off The Record
“Off the record” is your code for speaking to a journalist in a way that’s not attributed to you and is not intended for publication. The New York Times’ definition of off the record is1:
Ideally, terms are established at the start. And since nothing from the conversation can be used for publication, journalists are, ideally, cleareyed about the consequences of this arrangement, if they agree to it at all: Sources will have their own agendas, trying to shape future coverage to their liking.
Still, there can be benefits for a reporter, including the chance to see newsmakers in an unguarded setting. Do they know what they’re talking about? Do they seem overconfident? The chat is off the record, but the impressions last.
As Journalism Dictator, I’d also expand that definition of “Off the Record” to include asides in an interview where a source asks the journalist first to go off the record, the journalist agrees to temporarily going off the record and the source or journalist asks to go back on the record—where everything you say can and may be published—and both parties agree.
Off the record conversations and quotes can be used for all sorts of things. In my former beat as a tech and business journalist, sources used it for stuff that was kind of meh (badmouthing a competitor, boasting about grandiose future plans), fun (gossip) or useful but unprintable (explaining delays in FDA approvals, say, or explaining the different factions of activist shareholders trying to take over a company).
These off the record conversations and asides were not meant to be directly published, but instead both give a journalist context into the story they’re writing and subtly swerve the narrative in the source’s direction. They can also be used for authority building and relationship building.
On Background
On background is a more flexible beast. Quoting the New York Times again:
Generally, “on background” is understood to mean that the information can be published, but only under conditions agreed upon with the source. There can be good reasons for this — say, government employees sharing news-making documents that they would only volunteer without a name attached.
A reporter might negotiate with those sources to at least describe their jobs in broad strokes, to give a reader proper context: “a federal worker who shared the material,” “a government official with access to the information.”
I’ve had sources have on background conversations with me in several different contexts. One was when I was covering specific beats (electric cars, say, or cybersecurity) and sources wanted to explain industry trends and concerns with me frankly in a way that wouldn’t bite them in the ass2.
On background conversations typically occurred less frequently than off the record conversations and asides in my journalism days. I received lots of email asks for on background briefings for SMEs (subject matter experts) by PR folks, which I mostly ignored3.
Lots of times, background conversation contain various pieces of information which can then make it into news coverage if verified independently. Quotes from background conversations, at many media outlets, can also make it into coverage as “from an on background source” or something similar if their factual content is verified independently.
There is also a separate but related trend of spokespeople for large tech companies insisting on speaking to the press “on background.” As The Verge’s Nilay Patel explains,
There are many reasons a reporter might agree to learning information on background, but importantly, being on background is supposed to be an agreement.
But the trend with big tech companies now is to increasingly treat background as a default or even a condition of reporting. That means reporters are now routinely asked to report things without being able to attribute them appropriately, and readers aren’t being presented with clear sources of information.
This all certainly feeds into the overall distrust of the media, which has dire consequences in our current information landscape, but in practice, it is also hilariously stupid.
This practice happens less than it did in the 2020’s but can still frequently be seen in the wild. It’s not especially healthy and I urge you and your agency, if you have the political capital, to tell your clients hell no to this.
When Things Go Wrong
Like any other interaction between human beings, off the record and on background can go sideways sometimes.
Most importantly, if you’re being interviewed, you can’t say something to a reporter and then retroactively say it’s off the record. No, no, no. You and the reporter both have to agree that you’re speaking off the record first.
Here’s the thing: When you’re a journalist and you’re interviewing a source, something strange happens. People love talking about their jobs and their opinions, but they don’t have enough people to talk to about them in their daily lives. You’re interviewing them for an article, but your interviewee suddenly is treating you like a therapist, a coach, a detective doing an interrogation or a priest taking a confession. People want to talk about themselves and they often say things they don’t mean to say. Don’t be upset about it; it’s just human nature.
Be smart about that.
Sometimes interviewers and interviewees are unclear about if something is off the record or on background. If you are going to say something sensitive, make clear on the spot with the journalist if you’re off record, on background or on background and stand your ground. I’d also further argue that interviewees are totally within their rights to insist a journalist temporarily stop recording a video chat/phone call or not take notes in person while speaking to a sensitive topic.
There are also times when quotes or information that was meant to be off the record or on background ends up being on the record in an article. This happens sometimes; a journalist may make a mistake in writing or an editor may insist on putting off-the-record info on-record in article. When this happens, contact the publication immediately to ask for a revision. Do this ask politely and to-the-point; screaming and yelling is an easy way to get on the bad side of an editor or writer. This means not going nuclear and threatening to call your lawyer (which can easily lead to the news outlet’s lawyer becoming involved, which would significantly delay any correction or edits to the story) and winning flies with honey instead.
And, of course, don’t lie to reporters or editors that you were speaking with them off the record when a piece of news portrays you/your organization in a bad light. That is an easy way of attracting negative coverage (see the Streisand Effect) and that’s something you want to avoid in practical terms.
Anyway… this stuff is complicated! It’s a fact. And this stuff operates differently IRL than it does in a movie or TV show. But it’s part of the whole complex package that is speaking with the press—hopefully this helps.
Anything else you’d like to add from experience? Let us know in the comments or email us.
The Times definition was written in the context of explaining how journalists covered the Trump presidency—in other words, a very specific and highly dysfunctional era of journalism—but the general gist stands.
These sources also, more likely than not, wanted to shape my coverage of their industry in a way favorable to their interests and to not-so-subtly encourage me or my colleagues to call them for on-record soundbites for articles… but that is how the journalism sausage is made.
Tech, science and business journalist pro tip: You will more likely than not be bombarded with emails from PR agencies offering background briefings from media-trained CEOs or CMOs/VPs of marketing of client companies. These are mostly useless and consist of fluffy soundbites that don’t actually help you cover a beat; you instead want to do off the record conversations with the product managers, engineers and designers who actually do the cool stuff. Talk with them instead.