Can someone explain to me the nature of 'On Background'

Beware of folks trying to get you to make their points for them. Here's our position, they'll say, but don't quote me on it. Hey, if your position is that strong, let me get that on the record. Otherwise, it's no comment.

There might be some extentuating circumstances--for instance, potential litigation where any comment might be used by an opposing lawyer. But I'd be wary of too much background, lest you be seen as taking someone's side.

This is the kind of stuff that makes Washington coverage so problematic -- everyone seems to trade on-the-record sourcing for access, and the reader loses.

 

I understand this point, and you're completely right, in theory, but I cover an NFL team where nobody ever WANTS to say jack shit about anything, on or off the record. Getting something on background is a major coup.
And the team intimidates agents into not saying anything on behalf of their clients. I try to make sure I'm not serving one side's agenda without giving the other side a fair chance to make its points. That's absolutely the best I can do. If somebody actually was willing to be quoted by name, I think my backup would have to write the story, because I would have fallen over dead from shock.