Journalists Should Follow the Rules--But with Understanding
by John Aquino on 10/04/12
The most important rule there is for journalists is to always tell the truth. There are other rules, including, off the record means off the record. Not following this rule can damage the trust that must exist between the journalist and public. Why would anyone speak to us if they felt they couldn't trust us?
But I'm going to tell you a story of when I observed that rule, perhaps too closely.
I was working as the editor of a magazine owned by an environmental association. The association had just formed its own educational foundation, which, soon after its founding, developed its first conference. The foundation invited me to cover the conference, interested in the promotion a story in the magazine would bring, and I most gladly accepted.
I walked into the elevator in the hotel where the conference was being held to go down to the first session and standing there was the head of one of the larger associations devoted to recycling. I knew he was one of six panelists at the first session of the conference. I had never met him and so I introduced myself and extended my hand. He stared at me and barked, "I was not told there would be journalists attending!" When the elevator reached the ground floor, he stormed out and rushed toward the hotel ballroom.
I entered the ballroom, sat down in the audience, and saw him talking to the moderator for the session. The moderator began the session by saying, "This session is off the record for the press."
I put down my pen and notebook and folded my arms across my chest. It was clear what had happened. As a result of meeting me, the recycling association head (RAH) had demanded that the sessions be held off the record or he would not participate. The moderator felt he had no choice except to oblige.
After a while, one of the association's elected officials saw me sitting there, came over, and asked why I was not taking notes. I said, "I can't. It's off the record." He said, "It doesn't mean that." I said, "That's exactly what it means. If I were recording this, I would shut off my tape recorder and there would be no taped record. Since I am covering the session by taking notes, I have to stop taking notes. Off the record means there is no record."
He hauled me up and propelled me into the hallway and summoned some of the association staff. When I explained what was happening, one of them said, "Well, can't you do it from memory?" I answered, "If you were speaking, would you want me to write a story about what you said based on my memory."
When all six of the panelists had finished, the association elected official ran up to the stage and yelled at the moderator. The flustered moderator went back to the microphone and said, "The rest of this conference is entirely on the record." The only problem was, the first session had had all the big guns.
I had done the right thing. I did it by the book. Off the record means off the record. I had stood firm in the name of journalist integrity.
Hurray for me.
The fallout of that was that the moderator got into hot water with the association, and the foundation stopped being friends with the magazine. I tried to salvage the situation by writing my editor's page for the next issue on the magazine on the conference--not quoting anyone but giving my general impressions of the conference. However, no one thought that was even half way enough. The association staff and officers believed that I had caused major problems as a result of my misguided journalistic integrity. A year later, the association sold the publication to an independent publisher, and I and most of my staff were out of work. My behavior at that conference was not the only reason for the sale, but I am sure it contributed some.
Now that I am older and wiser, I have a good idea what I should have done. You see, I had special knowledge that the "off the record" announcement was due to the wishes of one panelist and one only--the RAH. The other five panelist evidently had no part in it. What I should done was not take notes on the RAH's remarks--who I absolutely knew wanted to be off the record--but to take notes on the presentations by the other five panelists. I should then have gone to the association officials and told them my problem due to the "off the record" announcement. I would tell them that I really shouldn't have made a record of the comments of the other five panelists except for my knowledge that the announcement was due to the wishes of just the RAH. I would propose that I contact the other five panelists and ask them if it was all right if I wrote a story on the session quoting their comments. In other words, we would ask them to put their comments back on the record. If they said yes, we were in business. If not, I would destroy my notes.
That probably would have worked, and the situation would have been better for it.
It's important to follow the rules, but if you do so inflexibly, well, you see what can happen.
Copyright 2012 by John T. Aquino
