Off and on the record

[KJIM]

Scenario: Feature story in a weekly sports-specific publication. An annual award, a generic feel-good piece.

Talked to two people about the subject. One freely told me the award winner donated his salary to the team in various ways (equipment, ice time, or to help individual families in personal situations). The second guy told me the same thing but asked in advance that it be off the record.

I told him that another person had confirmed that already, and he asked that I not use it. He said the award winner "wouldn't want it broadcast," but added that the team families already pretty much knew.

In this scenario, it's not a big deal. I've got enough other "good guy" stuff to cover, but just thought I'd throw this out there for possible discussion.

Clearly, it's ethical to use it since I had it on the record even before someone else asked that it be off. But considering the second source's request, I wondered if others would use it.

If the circumstances were different -- a news story, like terms of a contract or someting -- it's a no brainer to use. But in this case, it provides a little more detail about a guy who won an award. It's not vital to the story but adds some depth.

Would you use it?

 

[HejiraHenry]

You may have lost me on the final curve, but once one source tells you something on the record, it really doesn't matter if a thousand others want to tell you the same thing off the record. If anything, of course, the off-record source further confirms what you're being told.

 

[lcjjdnh]

Seem to me, like you said, you certainly could use it. Don't think I would, though.

Costs outweigh the marginal benefit. You're upsetting him to give your readers, at best, only a slightly better picture of a guy you already have enough details to describe well.

 

[Versatile]

I would call the guy who donated his salary and see if he'd be OK with you using it.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Yeah, I know.

But my question is: in this scenario, where it's not hard news and nothing earth-shattering, would you use the information, knowing that the subject of the story wouldn't want the information revealed?

I've pondered this question a bit more.

In a feature setting, I'd probably save that anecdote for another time and place.

 

[HanSenSE]

I would call the guy who donated his salary and see if he'd be OK with you using it.

This. Why are so many people afraid to take the direct approach?

 

[rpmmutant]

Yeah, why not ask the source if he's ok with putting in the story that he donated his salary? Who cares which second-hand source said it on the record or off the record. Get it from the source who will tell you if it's OK to use or not.

 

[imjustagirl]

I'm guessing the award might be a surprise? Otherwise, why would KJIM have talked to two people about the subject but not the subject himself?

 

[txsportsscribe]

still don't see why you didn't just ask the subject himself.

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

As I said, it wasn't worth it.

Far be it for me to know the details of your story, but I think that tidbit is more significant than you're making it out to be. I've never heard a coach do that before. You should have called him.

 

[Stitch]

Asking a simple question is hard.

 

[Ace]

KJIM,

In this case, I would weigh the benefits of using the tidbit in a story vs. the cost of possibly pissing off the one guy.

If the guy is just a pal of the award winner, that's one thing. If he's the most important coach in your area, that's another.

In the future, if someone freely tells you something and asks that you not print it when you already have it on the record, I would just make some kind of non-commital response, like, "Wow, it's nice he did that."

Don't commit. Don't say you already have it on the record. Don't get into a conversation about it at all.

Just print it if you think it's worth it and attribute it to the other person. That way you get it in the paper and the second guy doesn't have some memory of a conversation where he thinks you undermined him.

 

[huntsie]

I would have called the subject and told him "Buddy told me this, and I think it's a nice detail and really helps the story. Do you mind if I use it?" They might initially resist or have to be cajoled a bit, but it usually comes out "I'd rather you didn't" or "All right then, no big deal."
In either case, respect the subject's wishes.

 

[21]

Agree the best course is to ask the donor to verify what you were told; you don't even know for a fact whether he did indeed donate the money. See what he says, go from there.

But a moment to discuss 'on and off the record' once again:

Someone saying 'this is off the record' does not necessarily make it so. Technically, he can ask or request it, but unless you agree in advance, it's still fair game. So when you get some great story, and then the guy adds at the end, 'yeah, but that's off the record,' you can still say 'um, sorry, no.' Or as Ace suggested, you can get it from someone else and attribute it that way.

Off the record only works when your subject says 'okay, I'll talk to you, but it has to be off the record,' and you can agree or disagree.

 

[ringer]

It's not up to your subject whether your should include it in the story. You don't need to ask his/her permission.

If the facts are confirmed from reliable on-the-record sources, it's absolutely legit (regardless of whether another source says the same thing off the record - just be sure you don't attribute the info to the off-the-record person).

 

[BillyT]

I would call the guy who donated his salary and see if he'd be OK with you using it.

This. Why are so many people afraid to take the direct approach?

I would call him and ask if it's true.

 

[ringer]

Yes, I understand that. But that's not what I was asking.

Again, here's the bigger picture I was hoping to discuss:

But my question is: in this scenario, where it's not hard news and nothing earth-shattering, would you use the information, knowing that the subject of the story wouldn't want the information revealed?

If people know about it already, then it's already been revealed. I'm not sure why it's such a big dilemma.

Also, a subject's actions speak louder than words so it's more persuasive to offer hard evidence of the person's benevolence rather than a bunch of quotes that say, "He's a good guy."

 

[Ace]

Yes, I understand that. But that's not what I was asking.

Again, here's the bigger picture I was hoping to discuss:

But my question is: in this scenario, where it's not hard news and nothing earth-shattering, would you use the information, knowing that the subject of the story wouldn't want the information revealed?

Ah, but you don't know that he wouldn't want the information revealed.

You just have one guy telling you that and two people you talked to knew it, so it's not like he's doing a great job keeping it a secret.

It's entirely possible that the subject would like it to be known but doesn't want to seem like he's the one touting his largesse.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

If two people say he donated his salary, you have two people saying he donated his salary. If he says he donated his salary, you have him saying he donated his salary. In neither case do you know for a fact that he donated his salary. You have people saying he did.

I know that's not the topic, but in case the kids are reading here, I thought someone should say it.

 

[Dan Feldman]

In the future, if someone freely tells you something and asks that you not print it when you already have it on the record, I would just make some kind of non-commital response, like, "Wow, it's nice he did that."

Don't commit. Don't say you already have it on the record. Don't get into a conversation about it at all.

Just print it if you think it's worth it and attribute it to the other person. That way you get it in the paper and the second guy doesn't have some memory of a conversation where he thinks you undermined him.

I completely agree with this. But since you've already crossed that bridge, here's my advice:

I understand your uneasiness about using that detail, even if you understand you ethically can. If you think it adds to your story -- and it certainly sounds like it would -- call the subject of the piece for follow-up questions.

Don't ask permission. Don't ask how he feels about you using it. Just ask him about why he donated his money, etc.

If he doesn't raise any objections to your line of questioning, you shouldn't worry about using it. If he does, then you'll have to evaluate whether including the info is worth upsetting two sources. (In this case, probably not, but I don't have enough details to know for certain.)