This is similar to what happened in September when Politico’s West Wing Playbook published an email from Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin. Patel stresses that the terms must be agreed upon before the information is shared. Patel went on to essentially say that companies simply can’t start an email with “on background” or “off the record” or “not for attribution” and automatically assume that anything that comes after will not be used or specifically sourced. Patel then made the definitions of “on the record” and “on background” clear.Ībout “on background,” Patel writes, it “means you can talk to us and we will not specifically identify you, instead using a descriptor like ‘company spokesperson.’” Patel writes, “From now on, the default for communications professionals and people speaking to The Verge in an official capacity will be ‘on the record.’ We will still honor some requests to be on background, but at our discretion and only for specific reasons that we can articulate to readers.” But it’s interesting to see what The Verge is doing. Is that a bit different than the kind of sources, say, The New York Times or Washington Post or CNN deal with covering news stories? Perhaps. Oftentimes, that means The Verge hears from PR types who pitch those various gadgets and products. Perhaps here it should be noted that The Verge is a blog mostly about technology and it writes a lot about gadgets, electronics, products and that sort of stuff. Patel wrote, “We’re doing this because big tech companies in particular have hired a dizzying array of communications staff who routinely push the boundaries of acceptable sourcing in an effort to deflect accountability, pass the burden of truth to the media, and generally control the narratives around the companies they work for while being annoying as hell to deal with.” “On background” can be especially tricky, which led The Verge to change its policy regarding reporting “on background.” Editor-in-chief Nilay Patel wrote about it in a story published Wednesday on The Verge’s website. Again, the agreement should be made before the source reveals the information. Now, what about “on background?” Typically, that means a source shares information that a journalist is free to use with one caveat: The journalist should not attribute that information to a specific or named person. Off-the-record comments are supposed to remain strictly between the source and the reporter. If the reporter agrees to an off-the-record request, the ethical thing to do is not report or even repeat that information. The source then can decide whether or not they want to share that information. Here’s how it’s supposed to work:Ī source should ask a reporter first if something can be off the record. I wrote about this recently, but let’s go over it again real quick. Here are two phrases that often come up in journalism - in fact, they come up so often that even non-journalists have heard of them.įirst, off the record.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |