by Ed Barks

What does it mean when a corporate or association media relations officer asks a reporter to talk “off the record?” All too often, it means a jumble of definitions that create an environment ripe for confusion and finger pointing.

The report, “Can We Talk Off the Record? Resolving Disagreements, Increasing Understanding Between Reporters and Public Relations Practitioners.” examines the attitudes of veteran journalists and public relations practitioners with two goals in mind.

The first is to attempt to resolve disagreement among those who believe off the record is a useful tool and those who say it should never be used (it should be noted that disagreement exists among PR experts, even among media training specialists). The second goal is to heighten understanding between reporters and PR practitioners.

Definitions Differ
According to the research conducted by Barks Communications, there is much disparity in definitions of the terms off the record, “on background,” and “not for attribution.” In addition, while 49 percent of survey respondents say they oppose going off the record, 78 percent admit using the tactic at some point, an indicator that practicality outweighs principle.

The report spells out standard definitions for each term in hopes that widespread adoption by reporters and their sources can lessen mix-ups and misunderstandings.

One of the report’s most significant findings is that PR practitioners who once served as reporters seem more inclined to utilize the off the record technique than their peers who have never worked in a newsroom. Thus, former journalists are poised to play an important role by helping to educate their less savvy colleagues.

Common Sense Proposals
“Can We Talk Off the Record? Resolving Disagreements, Increasing Understanding Between Reporters and Public Relations Practitioners” issues 10 prudent recommendations designed to move journalists and PR experts toward the twin goals of resolving disagreement about the use of off the record, and fostering a broad-based understanding between the two professions. Among the report’s recommendations:

• Keep media interviews on the record unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
• Develop and adhere to recommended standard definitions of off the record and other media relations standards
• Distribute those definitions to reporters, public relations practitioners, and to professional organizations to which they belong in an effort to achieve greater consistency and to minimize misunderstanding.
• Educate public relations practitioners, especially those with no media experience, on both the meaning and the value of conducting interviews off the record when beneficial.
• Enter into off the record arrangements only with trustworthy reporters and sources.
• Agree to ground rules before beginning an interview.
• Ensure that both parties explicitly agree to abide by the ground rules.
• Confirm that both parties are empowered by their organizations to enforce the confidentiality of off the record interviews.
• Negotiate ground rules before every interview, even if simply renewing the conversation after a short break.
• Refrain from using such canards as “there is no such thing as off the record” or “off the record is a lie.”

• Include the resource and copyright information included at the end of each article exactly as we have written it.
• If your publication accepts photos, include this photo of Ed.
• Notify us by e-mail and let us know which article you plan to use and in which edition it will appear.
• Send us a copy of your publication or tear sheet containing Ed's article.