Which makes the fact that the material was published as if it had been an interview, without any explanation of the actual circumstances, particularly bothersome IMO.
Publishing remarks made as background when you make it clear that they were made as background and that they weren't part of an actual interview is not unethical--though it is still unfair to the person being quoted, IMO, for reasons which are well explained by pg in his article.
Publishing remarks made as part of background for a completely different topic, in such a way as to make it seem as though they were made during an actual interview on the topic quoted, is unethical, IMO. And since that's what happened, I stand by my remark.
Publishing remarks made as background when you make it clear that they were made as background and that they weren't part of an actual interview is not unethical
So, you're just wrong about this. Filed under: Ethics - Human Sources: "'On background' is a kind of limited license to print what the source gives you without using the source's name."
I didn't actually use the specific phrase "on background", but perhaps I should have said "given as background on a different topic" or words to that effect to make myself clearer. I don't think pg was saying that he made his remarks with an understanding that they would not be printed as coming from him; I think he was just saying that he thought he was giving background information for a profile on Jessica Livingston, not answering questions as part of a formal interview on the topic of women startup founders.
Publishing anything that's not presented in a "this is blatantly on the record" or "this is blatantly in public and observable/reportable by anyone" context is unethical. Unfortunately, this happens all the time because it generates a lot of buzz for the outlet, just as happened here. In fact, there are outlets whose entire business is made up of publishing "off the record" stuff, like tabloids.
