What exactly does off the record mean to Bob Kravitz?

If any source talks about something like that and thinks you are not going to do anything with the information, then he's just being naive.

And any reporter who asks questions off the record and says they are not at all for professional purposes is lying. Either they are for background or to tell you where to ask on the record questions later or even just to establish a rapport which you will cash in later, there is always a professional purpose.

Heck, when I talk to a player about his kids it's not really because I give a damn about his kids, but becaue I want to be friendly and establish a relationship with the guy so he sees me as more than a walking notebook.

As an earlier poster suggested, sources probably should never go off the record about anything that they wouldn't want to see in print eventually.

Of course, I'm not going to tell them that.

 

Major trust violation here. Just because someone is thrown overboard doesn't mean it's now suddenly, magically fit to print.

 

So you would go into it intending to use off-the-record stuff at some point in the future, and you would just stay mum rather than make that clear to the person talking to you? That seems really lowdown.

The whole reason that there is "not for attribution," "background" and "off the record" is that they're all different. Just school your source quickly and see where your chat is going to land. But once it lands there, it lands there. You can't kick it toward "on the record" like you would your golf ball out of the rough.

OTR should never, ever see print. Kravitz violated a professional standard. Nothing will happen to him, especially since he did it about a shamed guy.

 

Phrases such as "Off The Record" and "On Background" shoud be eliminated from our lexicons. In order to prevent any confusion, I spell it out whenever it's necessary.
"OK, dude. I want to talk to you and I'd like to use the quotes, but I won't use your name. I'll refer to you as 'a Division I head coach' or something that doesn't specifically identify you. Is that OK?"

To assume an interview subject knows the meaning of these concepts is a bad idea. I've gotten to where I don't know what they mean anymore, and I don't want to know.

 

No.

Off the record means the conversation didn't exist journalistically.

 

Then, said subject tells you there is no interview.

So, sure, pick whatever preamble you choose.

But don't be a disingenuous, lying bastard about it and change the rules afterward.

 

Off the record means exactly that, no grey area.

Much as I don't like going off the record, it can give you ways to find the information you are eventually looking to find. There are several reasons someone won't go on the record on a topic, but they have reasons to point you in the right direction.

The key to off the record conversations is that you need to use the information to find someone credible who is willing to go on the record before you can do anything with the information.

 

I agree with Bobcat and Dragonfly.
Somebody asked "what changed" between the off-the-record conversation and Kravitz's decision to reveal his impressions of it. What changed, obviously, is that the guy went out and did it again.
But Bob, who's an excellent columnist, in my view, was too specific in his recollections. I wouldn't have done it that way.
I'm not sure what the point would be of having a conversation that didn't "exist journalistically." If the information doesn't inform your viewpoint or point you toward something, then you wasted your time and the source's.

 

I didn't say I would use the quotes, but certainly I would have the information in my brain. I can't say: "OK, this is an off-the-record conversation so I'm going to stick it in the non-professional part of my brain, which is totally from the professional part of my brain, and I will never use this information to do my job." That's just not reality.

The whole point of an off-the-record conversation is for you to have the information, even if you can't use it in a direct quote. Sources ought to know at least that much.

I don't think I'm revealing any big secret here. That's the way it works. Source A tells you X off the record, but then you go to Sources B, C and D and ask questions that might lead you to getting X on the record.

Source A ought to know this. Otherwise why is he telling you? Because he wants you to be his friend? Not likely. In most cases, people tell you stuff off the record because they want it in the paper. They just don't want to be responsible for it.

 

Yes, but in this case the source was telling about himself. What did he expect you to do with that information?

 

As a craft matter, phrases like "off the record" and "on background" are only meaningful insofar as both the reporter and the subject know the precise definition of the terms.

 

As others have said:

Off the record means off the record.

What about that statement suggests any damn wiggle room?

Violating that agreement is just another reason our subjects (and readers) don't trust us.

Of course you work to get the subject to say as much as possible on the record. But sometimes they're testing us to see if they can go off the record and trust we won't use their comments.

And yes, we should do all we can to make sure our subject knows what we mean by off the record or for background. That should be part of our job.

But if we write about something obtained off the record, as the columnist did here, we deserve to be ripped.

If I'm an athlete reading what Bob wrote regarding Sampson I politely tell him to keep his distance, that I have no interest in speaking to him again, on or off the record.

Anyone trying to rationalize this behavior as acceptable is just another example of taking shortcuts and flat-out cheating.

And I like Bob's work.

Geezus.