Off the record

I thought I was clear but seems like the lines have been muddied ...

Say you're covering a junior hockey team and observe the team president hurling obscenities at the opposing players during a blowout game re: How poorly they are playing, how they just got their ass handed to them in a fight, etc.

 

You write it.

 

I emailed a writer once as a courtesy with some information and threw in a comment as an aside.

The comment and my name was used in one a follow-up story. She couldn't understand why I was aggravated and said any email or communication she received was fair game, and she didn't have to tell anyone she was quoting them.

My next email was to her editor and publisher. It's courtesy to let someone know you'd like to quote them if the situation is like Johnny D's example.

 

This was an entertaining post by mizzou. I loved the last two paragraphs and would have to agree.
I hate off the record stuff. I know people swear by it as a way of gaining information. I just wish everybody who told us something off the record realizes we'll immediately take that information and find somebody who'll confirm on the record. It's just awkward to go off the record.

 

i was quoted in a paper I once worked for simply because it dealt with a murder story i covered and after two decades they finally caught the guy who did it. But it was all above board. the reporter called me about it to ask me some details and used some of what i said. not that I was a lot of help -- too many beers during those two decades.

 

Huh.

OK, so I'm the one who posted the original thought on the Doyel thread after it reminded me of my friend's story. His example was more an obvious, they were covering a game together and shooting the crap, so why the eff would you even think about saying the other writer's name or something. If you *HAVE* to write about the topic/conversation, say 'another reporter' (if the area is big enough) or ask permission.

But SixToe's example brought up something else for me.

I cover something on a national level and, every so often, I'll get people writing to ask questions for a story re: a certain player or team. Typically, I direct them to my boss or one of my coworkers, because I don't particularly care to be quoted.

Every so often, I'll write other writers across the country asking their local perspective on my subject, especially areas I don't know well.

A couple months ago, I got an e-mail from a writer on the other coast. He wrote something along the lines of 'I cover such-and-such team, where this player you just saw is signed. I was wondering your thoughts on that player's tournament.' Didn't say anything about being on or off the record so I stupidly assumed it was off the record. Luckily, I didn't say anything too terribly horrible because, a few days later, I happened upon said writer's blog(!) and discovered my name and quote, re: the player (at least he properly used copy-and-paste).

I just chalked it up to a lesson learned on my part and didn't even think to be mad/angry about it. Figured I had to watch my e-mails to the media brethren a little more closely was all. SixToe's post is making me wonder.

 

There was a fatal wreck in front of my house at 3 a.m. a few years back. The police rope off the area and ask those of us first on the scene to step back. News reporter shows up about an hour after the wreck and comes in my driveway and asks what happened. I told him figuring he wanted some reconstruction before doing interviews. The story comes out the next day with quotes from me (which were inaccurate) and a police officer -- no one else.
This despite a newspaper policy not to quote its own. Didn't even identify me as a co-worker. As far as I know, he was not disciplined for this. But he was gone a few months later for being a hack.

 

Ducky, I believe with more attitudes of "anything goes" or "we can fix it on the Internets" appearing in the business, caution is necessary when sending any email to reporters we don't know.

We shouldn't have to include a line about our comments not being for publication. But adding a disclaimer to each correspondence may be the next step.

 

You shouldn't have to tell another reporter something is off the record. If you ever quote another reporter you should tell them first that their comment is going to be printed.

I used to call other reporters for background on guys I was doing a feature on. They would tell me things that were incredibly helpful, but if I printed them it get them fired, but they trusted me to have a clue and use it as background and nothing more. Countless times I've had other reporters call me in a similar situation.

It's professional courtesy and common sense.

 

Sidebar question: Why would a reporter, who presumably stands behind his integrity, follow a different standard for his blog?

Not meaning anyone in particular ... just asking in general terms.

 

Call me naive, but I've never worried about another reporter screwing me on something like this when they've called for background info. I guess I should worry though. A couple of years ago, a guy called to ask me about a pretty high-profile coach possibly taking a job with the team I cover. The reporter asks if I know anything about it. I tell him "it's a done deal". The next day in his story (at a pretty well-known paper), he writes that Coach X's move to Team X is pretty much a done deal, according to an NFL source with knowledge of the situation.

I hope dude actually confirmed this with someone else. But something tells me he didn't because I know the guy doesn't have many sources on his beat.

 

I don't think he or she should, but I see it all the time. Not necessarily with respect to this topic, but in other contexts.