Off the Record and On Background

By Alec Klein
August 26, 2008

In the middle of a major business investigation for The Washington Post, I sought an interview with a once-powerful world leader who shall remain anonymous for reasons that will become immediately evident.

One of his emissaries promptly got back to me, granting the request but on two conditions: I could not identify the individual—and this former world leader would only talk if I ran his quotes by his people before publication.

My initial thought: What else do you want—my first born?

Such conditions are not uncommon for reporters—and for investigative business reporters in particular, who are often navigating delicate and complex financial stories involving skittish sources who have a phalanx of public relations handlers or fear for their reputations, if not their corporate lives. World leaders also know a thing or two about preserving their world-leader status. Sometimes, that means keeping their names out of the news.

It’s always preferable, of course, to quote a source on the record if only because it’s more credible than a nameless source. The issue has taken on heightened importance in an era when some reporters at prominent newspapers have been caught making up quotes and people. But beyond that, it’s almost always preferable to avoid agreeing to run quotes by a source before publication. What, for instance, happens if the source doesn’t like his quote? And what if he demands to change his quote? Is it still a quote?

I say unequivocally: no.

Sometimes, a reporter has no choice but to agree to an interview in which the source demands anonymity. This, to be sure, is the case when the source’s identity would put him at risk. It’s also the case when the reporter has no other way to get the interview—and the interview is critical to the story. Anonymous sourcing was a frequent topic of conversation at The Washington Post, where I was an investigative business reporter before accepting an appointment as a professor at Northwestern. Indeed, The Washington Post has a long and storied tradition when it comes to anonymous sourcing, including reporting on Watergate and that most famous source, Deep Throat.

One meeting among reporters and editors a few years ago remains particularly relevant to business reporters when it comes to dealing with nettlesome sources.  The meeting resulted in the following guidelines:

First, when a source says he wants to talk off the record, try to convince him to go on the record. Sometimes, sources don’t understand the basic machinery of reporting and why it’s important –and more credible—for their comments to be on the record.

Second, if the source still insists on making his comments off the record, define the terms right on the spot so that both of you understand the agreement. Frequently, sources only want to ensure that their name or identity remains unknown, but they are willing to let you use the information or quotes. That conversation is considered “on background.” I’m reminded of an interview I did on background with a billionaire who would not let me tape record the conversation because he said he wanted to be able to deny that he had spoken to me.

It’s also important to be careful about how we identify sources whom we interview on background. If the source, for example, is described as the chief executive officer of the largest media company in the world, that, of course, is virtually the same as identifying the executive by name—and that can’t happen. It’s a good idea to discuss with your source how you plan to describe him in print, on television or online.

And finally, when a source says he is speaking “off the record,” it traditionally means a reporter cannot use those comments in any way. That kind of information is usually only meant to help guide the reporter’s thinking and research. But because it effectively ties the reporter’s hands, preventing him from using the information in a story, it’s important to consider whether it’s worth agreeing to an off-the-record conversation.

On occasion—and I’ve done this—it’s better to refuse to talk to a source off the record as you may want the freedom to pursue reporting in that area. You may also want to condition your sources to only go off the record if it is absolutely necessary.

As for that world leader, I agreed to conduct the interview on background as long as I could use the information in the story. He agreed. In turn, he insisted that his people see the quotes before publication; I reluctantly agreed because the interview was critical to the story. But when his people tried to edit his quotes, I refused.

As journalists, we are only as good as our word. That means honoring our agreements with sources. It also means remaining faithful to the facts.

Alec Klein is a bestselling author, award-winning investigative business reporter formerly of The Washington Post and professor of business journalism at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.

Copyright © 2008 Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism