One of the frustrating things about journalism is that almost every non-journalist has an opinion on how to be a reporter. Unfortunately, a lot of these opinions tend to be uninformed and often outright incorrect. This phenomenon crops up especially when one of journalism's "rules" is in question - how to handle anonymous sources, what is off the record and what isn't, or how to cope with an important source who won't cooperate.
The second rule mentioned above is one of the ripest grounds for controversy, often because interview subjects try to abuse the concept. When someone decides to tell a reporter something that is not to be printed - something "off the record" - he must make it crystal clear before he says it. This is accomplished by "This is off the record, but ..." or "Don't print this, but ..." What cannot be done is something to the effect of "Yeah, I really hate that guy, but that's off the record." Given a scenario like the last one, a reporter has every right to print what he was told.
The difference between going off the record prior to a statement or after a statement may appear to be an arbitrary one, but a logical rationale underlies it. Picture a situation where a subject gives an extensive interview, maybe an hour or longer, to a reporter, only to say at the end, "By the way, that was all off the record." This is a grand waste of the reporter's limited time and the newspaper's limited resources. Only by saying so up front, before making the relevant statement, can a person rightly prevent it from being printed.
Unfortunately, not everyone understands this distinction. At my last job, a community figure gave a quote and then tried to say "off the record" afterward. The reporter justifiably printed the quote, and the interviewee responded by spreading lies that the reporter was making things up for his stories.
This illustrates why reporters must sometimes tread lightly, despite the "rules." If the person who provides information but then says "off the record" is a regular source for the reporter, it may be better for the reporter to respect that request in order to preserve a good relationship. If the quote is important, and it cannot be obtained otherwise, then the reporter should print it.
I write about this topic today because it is an often misunderstood aspect of journalism, and a mild example of the conflict that can arise because of it occurred this week.
In a Sept. 6 Life story, "Students flock to hear their own 'Voices'," a show producer is quoted as calling the "Voices of the Class" show "some of the cheapest theater on Grounds." I received an e-mail from the producer saying he had requested that quote not be used, or if it was used, that the disclaimer "but not at the expense of quality" be added on.
I spoke to the reporter who wrote the article, and she said that the producer made no such request and that he added on the remark about "cheapest theater" at the end of an answer to one of her questions. She was adamant that she respects the rights of those interviewed and would never print anything that was supposed to be off the record.
When I spoke with the producer, he said that after making the "cheapest theater" remark, he then chuckled and half-jokingly asked that the quote not be used. This approach leaves the reporter with a lot of discretion - the casual manner used may be why the reporter said no request was made. The producer acknowledged that his after-the-statement request left the reporter with leeway, and in this case, the disputed quote is a case of no harm, no foul. The subject matter of the quote was not very serious, the complainant was looking for an explanation and was satisfied with it, and the reporter was in the clear in putting the quote in the newspaper.
More serious situations than this come up fairly regularly, and the editor's response is a standard one: Check the reporter's notes. If the quote is there, that is the end of it, and the newspaper stands by the quote and whether it was on the record. If the quote is not there, the reporter has some explaining to do.
Unfortunately for The Cavalier Daily, in disputes like these, which may pit an administrator against a student journalist, credibility, can sometimes rule the day - despite the high quality of The Cavalier Daily, there are people who do not respect its staff because they are "pretend" reporters. That is why college newspapers must take extra steps to establish credibility such as telling reporters to offer to read quotes back after interviews, something The Cavalier Daily has done. Greater credibility may lead to a greater understanding by outsiders of how the institution known as journalism functions.
(Matthew Branson can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 20 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
