Comments on: Human Sources

By: Daniel Chandranayagam

Daniel Chandranayagam — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:07:13 +0000

What happens when they do not return your calls or respond to your email? How long does one wait before submission for publication?

By: Gina F. Faridniya

Gina F. Faridniya — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:27:41 +0000

I’ve had similar experiences. A source will say ‘off the record’ after they’ve given me the information. A reporter should evaluate the information provided before telling the source it’s too late. Sometimes the relationship a reporter has with his/her source is more valuable than the information itself.

By: Roseann Lake

Roseann Lake — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:24:03 +0000

I’ve heard of “off the record” information being used by journalists as barter. For example, a subject speaks off the record, and then a journalist talks to someone else and uncovers something that the subject doesn’t want mentioned. As a trade-off for not saying anything about it, the journalist coaxes the subject into “taking-back” what was previously “off the record” in exchange for making no mention of some dark information discovered from another source. I’ve encountered at least 2 professional and well-respected journalists that do this, but I think it’s a bit louche. Where does this stand from an ethical point of view?

By: Erik Sherman

Erik Sherman — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 08:31:59 +0000

I’ve always taken this as meaning that you also cannot quote the person, either. It might be good to explicitly state that, otherwise it sounds too much like not for attribution.

By: Sue Russell

Sue Russell — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:14:17 +0000

Unfortunately, in my experience, people often do say something and then claim it was ‘off the record’. And while it may be true, it’s not always easy to simply proclaim, ‘You’re too late.’ On occasion, I’ve worked on the wording of a quote with someone to try to ameliorate their fears about it being published. If you want/need more information, or if an interview is incomplete, sometimes you may have to try to work it out.

By: Sue Russell

Sue Russell — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:07:56 +0000

I find it very true that ‘off the record’ is often thought synonymous with ‘on background’ and ‘not for attribution’. A law enforcement lecturer I know includes spelling out the meaning of the various terms to officers he trains. But I think you have to assume that there is confusion and make it a habit to clarify.

By: Carolyn Kormann

Carolyn Kormann — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:39:24 +0000

The last sentence made me wonder — is it ever appropriate to threaten punitive action against a source?

By: Adam Penenberg

Adam Penenberg — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:48:35 +0000

One issue we didn’t tackle in this handbook is Q+As. Recently a New York Press reporter took on Deborah Solomon, a contributor to The New York Times Magazine. She does the short one-page Q+As. The NY Press writer tracked down Ira Glass of NPR, who complained that while he was quoted accurately, she never asked the questions she used in the Q+A.

https://master.nypress.com/20/39/news&columns/feature9.cfm

It seems magazine Q+As exist outside the usual ethical constraints. Almost every magazine I’ve worked with has published Q+As in which the questions are restated to keep the narrative flowing, to smooth transitions, etc. But you’re usually not allowed to change answers, although I’ve seen editors at magazines do just that. Not to change meaning but to boil down info to its essence.

Here’s the money graf in the NY Press piece:

“In a follow-up email to me, Glass wrote: ‘As you and I talked about on the phone, though magazines radically rewrite and fabricate interviewers’ questions all the time….I don’t think a newspaper should do it. I know in some picky way, the New York Times Magazine thinks of itself as a magazine, but for me and for most readers, we assume the editorial standards are the same as in the newspaper of record, and when the paper says a reporter asked a question, the reporter did in fact ask the question.’”

Newspapers should be held to a different ethical standard than magazines? I’m not sure that’s right. Perhaps one solution could be greater transparency, a note to readers explaining how the Q+A is created. It’s a popular form–readers like it–so it’s not going to go away. But readers should know–if they don’t already–that liberties are often taken with the questions, and sometimes with the answer, too.