
What Does ‘Off the Record’ Really Mean? - js2
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/reader-center/off-the-record-meaning.html
======
jedberg
I won't talk to journalists anymore. It never goes well. Even when I'm talking
to a supposedly "friendly" journalist, they will cherry pick my words or
"summarize the source" to fit their narrative, even if the meaning is the
opposite of what I said.

Journalists have a rule that they won't show their articles to sources before
publication. I understand why that rule is necessary for _adversarial_
sources, like when you're reporting a negative story on something a politician
said. You don't want them to scoop you or try to change the narrative before
your article gets out.

But when you contact me asking me to explain a technical topic in detail
because you don't understand it, why in the world would you _not_ want to show
me the article before publication, so that I can make sure you properly
captured the nuance? Instead, they quote sentence one of two, where number two
has important nuance to it, or they summarize the two sentences inaccurately,
and then attach my name to it, making me look uniformed. Then I have to hop on
the comments and defend myself, making me look bad and the journalist.

In a world where sources can put comments on an article right next to an
article, they really need to update their rules to differentiate between
friendly and adversarial sources.

~~~
WalterBright
I once had a telephone interview with a journalist. I made some silly remark,
followed with "don't print that".

Both the remark and the "don't print that" were printed in the article.

~~~
lvs
And you learned a lesson in how reporting works.

~~~
WalterBright
Of course. Now I take questions in writing, and respond in writing. It's less
work for the journalist, too, as they don't have to spend time transcribing a
recording.

------
Waterluvian
This article was really disappointing. It doesn't answer the only question I
really want to read about: what happens when people break these rules?

~~~
ad_hominem
They get hired by the New York Times?

[https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/102542508844570214...](https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1025425088445702145)

~~~
jwilk
Can someone explain what happened here?

These Twitter threads, like most of them, don't make any sense to me.

~~~
cyphar
The short version is that Naomi Wu was asked to give an interview to Vice.
Before doing the interview, she asked that a few ground rules be followed --
as far as I'm aware the main one was that her relationship with her partner
not be discussed (as far as I understand the concern was related to a
conspiracy theory that Naomi doesn't do her projects herself -- and that her
foreign partner does them for her -- which could cause massive political
problems for her in China). Vice decided to ask her questions about it anyway,
and included those questions in the article (and apparently Naomi didn't know
they were going to include them). Naomi then went on to talk about how this
was (in her view) a massive breach of ethics, and how it endangered her safety
within China (something that she apparently explained to Vice before accepting
the interview).

Once the article came out, Naomi tried to get them to remove that section of
the article and they didn't respond to any of her emails. She then went on to
"dox" one of the reporters (though I have heard that the information she
posted was available just by searching his name online).

Sarah Jeong basically attempted to counter this criticism of Vice by saying
that she has asked around, and Naomi's concerns are ill-founded (Sarah used to
work for Vice, so you could argue that she isn't exactly impartial on this
topic). And obviously most media outlets focused on Naomi's doxxing (which to
be clear -- is something that shouldn't have been ignored) rather than the
original situation with Vice. This evolved into a pretty big argument, and
Naomi appears to have come to the conclusion that almost all western media is
unethical.

Later Vice apparently asked Patreon to close Naomi's account (as a response to
her doxxing one of their employees), and Patreon followed their instructions
-- cutting Naomi off from one of her sources of income for her videos. It's
apparently very hard to get donations into China (crypto-currencies don't help
because you cannot convert them into real money inside China easily).

Hopefully I've explained the situation without letting my position poison the
summary.

~~~
quantumwoke
To be clear, I can't find anything in the Vice article that actually talks
about Naomi's relationship, marital status or sexual orientation beyond a
cursory question about the conspiracy theory. It seems that Vice followed her
wishes up until the point that the conspiracy theory was mentioned (which in
Naomi's defense would obviously be upsetting).

~~~
cyphar
So here's the quote from the article[1]:

> In the past few years, she’s been forced to fend off vile and unfounded
> conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has
> masterminded her career

I think that the main concern is that they refer to it _specifically_ as being
a foreign man masterminding her career -- not just a general conspiracy
theory.

While I understand them wanting to say it's wrong (which is what they are
saying), according to Naomi[2] the idea of a "foreign puppet-master" is a dog-
whistle in China (which, from what I've heard, has an incredibly protectionist
culture). The idea of a figurehead of Shenzhen's maker culture being
controlled by a foreigner would apparently not end well for Naomi.

[1]: I'm not going to link it here, just Google "Naomi Wu vice". [2]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9b...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0dkwwV_iaw&lc=UgxKQJHTXHv9bE88NmF4AaABAg)
\-- I don't like this particular YouTuber, but Naomi responds in the comments.

~~~
nebulous1
I'm not seeing how what Vice printed (conspiracy theory) goes against what she
asked them not to question her about in the tweet screenshot
(relationships/orientation).

They might have removed it when she asked, but I don't see how they broke the
original agreement.

Also, do I understand that Jeong's only involvement with this was that she
commented on the situation after the fact? Or did she have something to do
with the original article?

~~~
cyphar
> Or did she have something to do with the original article?

She didn't have anything to do with the original article. She came to the
defense of her former colleagues (she used to work for Vice) and claimed that
Naomi was manipulating her fanbase into believing that she was in danger when
she really wasn't[1].

[1]:
[https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/981575986322989056](https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/981575986322989056)

------
ISL
I once was involved in a journalistic/fact-finding endeavor involving myriad
confidential exchanges of information.

One of the biggest lessons from the experience has been that a promise of
confidentiality should be extended only when absolutely necessary. In
aggregate, it would have been better to have a smaller amount of information
that could be made public than a comprehensive set of information that remains
restricted, perhaps forever.

If I need to do such a thing again, I will make plain to each source, in
writing when possible, that, while I am attempting to get to the truth and
will treat their information with care, I may publish anything I learn, full
stop.

~~~
chrisseaton
> If I need to do such a thing again, I will make plain to each source, in
> writing when possible, that, while I am attempting to get to the truth and
> will treat their information with care, I may publish anything I learn, full
> stop.

I think the point you are missing is that people won't talk to journalists at
all in the first place if they're on the record. You can put your foot down
all you like and say 'it's all on the record' but then they'll just say 'ha ha
ok no comment then' and you'll learn nothing.

~~~
ISL
Agreed entirely; it seems like a bad idea, but the flip side is that anything
they _do_ feel comfortable sharing with you can be readily shared with others.
That second fact, coupled with the reality that many people like to tell their
own stories, at least in part, is more powerful than anything learned through
anonymity.

Viewed another way, if the goal is to get to the truth _and share it_ , it is
useless to learn an unshareable truth.

------
stefan_
In the NYTimes, off the record usually means a government official
strategically "leaking" information following the government line, being
granted anonymity by the paper because (?).

------
smsm42
I expected an article about common journalist practices and I from the start I
got an attack on Trump because of some (of a countless and never ending
variety) beef they had with them instead. Of course, this could also be seen
as "explaining some of our journalistic practices". I get it, good work.

------
kpwagner
First two words of the article: "President Trump"

Is it possible for the news to cover anything without including an opinion
about Trump--or his tweets? I am so turned off by this "style" of journalism
where every piece includes an opinion (implied or explicit) about the
president of the United States. Sad.

~~~
untog
The reason for the article being written is that Trump broke an off the record
agreement with the Times a few days ago.

~~~
gweinberg
Not only that, he stared directly into an eclipse!

~~~
kpwagner
Haha. Yes, more importantly, the eclipse thing. Because no one else did that.

------
Atreus
Most of the time, when spoken by those in power, it is a lie, and it really
means "I'm trying to be deceptive".

Most of the time, when requested by those with vulnerability, it is the
gateway to critical, but potentially highly dangerous information, and a
request for protection.

~~~
Atreus
I think the "one company" media in the US has lost authoritativity and
credibility with anyone who thinks.

The media makes its money by keeping sheep as sheep, and leading them to the
shearers or the slaughter. If it taught critical thought then someone who
knows what a free market is would strongly oppose the single-source for news,
and that monopoly would end. They would not make as much money with paid
workers as they do with slaves - intellectually and cognitively speaking. Junk
journalism would get junk revenue, not top billing.

~~~
forapurpose
> the "one company" media in the US has lost authoritativity and credibility
> with anyone who thinks

I think quite a bit, and I greatly value many publications. The NYT in
particular is an independent company, and so is not part of any 'one company'
news media. That said, I do wish there was more diversity in ownership; in
particular, I wish there were serious publications that served an audience
besides the intellectual middle-upper class.

------
ballenf
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that every time a journalist agrees to
_any_ ground rules they have compromised their profession or given the
appearance of compromise (which is actually worse than hidden corruption in
terms of the effect on public trust).

Conditions on reporting turn reporters ever so slightly from press to
publicist. And at that point it's like the cliché about being willing to sleep
with someone for millions -- the character has been established and the only
thing left is negotiating the price.

Even though the article says it's not done, you have to imagine that some
reporters will agree to change a conversation into an "off-the-record" one in
exchange for access or a scoop. News orgs live and die by the access they get
and if some reporters are willing to prostitute themselves to get it, it puts
enormous pressure on the rest.

Conditions on reporting should be treated like doping in sports.

Edit: there is one area in which my framework needs a clarifying remark. A
reporter can always voluntarily refuse to identify a source or otherwise
protect it and the source can always use electronic or even snail mail methods
to preserve their anonymity. My comments above are not intended to mean that
reporters _must_ always report every detail of every interaction, only that
agreeing to conditions in advance can compromise their integrity and pervert
the role of the press generally.

2nd edit: I'm convinced there are areas where granting anonymity is absolutely
essential. My above position was clearly a knee-jerk and not well grounded in
reality. Thanks HN.

~~~
ForrestN
The reality is that nearly all sources, on or off the record, have an agenda.
That’s why reporters usually need multiple sources and other proof to run
something important.

History is filled with stories that would never have been told if the people
who told them weren’t granted anonymity. Going off the record shouldn’t be
accepted easily, and some reporters (including some stars at the Times) give
anonymity to people in the current administration who are known to lie
constantly, which is a terrible practice. But eliminating tools reporters can
use to unconver dangerous hidden truths just for the sake of “objectivity,”
which is always an illusion, doesn’t make sense to me.

~~~
ballenf
I edited my comment above in anticipation of this truth. You're right and the
difficulty with anonymously passing info is that the reporter can't verify the
source's integrity very easily (not every source has access to a non-public
document or other independent source of identity verification). I still
believe these issues can be addressed without a reporter compromising
themselves.

Maybe one bright line rule everyone could agree to is no conditions on
reporting when covering an elected or high-ranking (cabinet level or heads of
agencies, etc.) official. Wouldn't even cover their staff -- but anything you
see or hear a politician or high-level official do should be reportable in my
opinion.

~~~
dhsbak
It’s admirable to reconsider as you have, but there are some serious
inconsistencies in the popular ideas you’re aligning with and you may want to
clarify.

The difference between _whistleblowing_ and _reporting_ is purely subjective
and ultimately undermine the ideals of noble protections for the press that so
many love to defend. Until we find consistency here, we are also protecting a
privileged class of reporters and should at least consider the ramifications
of delegating press responsibilities this way before settling.

Why should we be guarding the NYT reporters while at the same time banishing
Snowden?

In an age of electronic media, our economy of attention is a full capacity.
Freedom of expression is a tiny concern compared with power of distributions.
Centralization of press responsibilities (separate discussion) make sense but
we must confront the realities of the machine this creates when we put so much
into protections. Many jobs carry great risk, and people choose them anyhow.
Risk acceptance is a classical way of measuring one’s loyalty to the the
collective good. It’s the basis for unmitigated respect to a nation’s
soldiers. Our current attention economy and the desirability to be a reporter
might serve a critical public good.

I argue we should reconsider accepting half-truths in exchange for protections
of an elite press. We desperately need a press devoted to working people and
this sounds like one possible ethical path in that direction. It’s not an easy
one, and worthy of debate. But, what we have is a disaster.

EDIT: Off the record, I work in the press. I desire to take more risk in the
name of competent work, but as long as I must compete with those comforted by
the standard operating procedures, I am afraid I cannot.

~~~
forapurpose
> I work in the press

Thanks for sharing your expertise. I'm sure others value it as well.

> I argue we should reconsider accepting half-truths in exchange for
> protections of an elite press. We desperately need a press devoted to
> working people ...

While I agree with the second phrase (and in fact you can find another comment
where I already said it), I don't understand what you mean by the first and
I'm very interested in your professional perspective: More protections for
professional journalism? Government funding? Ending free speech for non-
journalists? It's a bit ambiguous.

> I desire to take more risk in the name of competent work, but as long as I
> must compete with those comforted by the standard operating procedures, I am
> afraid I cannot.

Can you spell out what those standard procedures are and why they stop you?
Again, very interested, and I'm sure others would be too.

Based on my limited knowledge, the primary issue is that the publication must
work for customers who can pay enough to support them, which are the
middle/upper-class.

