Journalists’ sources sometimes agree to talk only ‘off the record’. Here we examine what that means and how to handle it when sources place restrictions on the use of their information.
Talking to people ‘off the record’ is a regular feature of journalistic life. It can be useful and it can be risky. It is vitally important to understand clearly how to handle such interviews.
Typically, it happens when a journalist approaches someone for an interview and the source says they are prepared to talk only ‘off the record’. Sometimes they use similar or related phrases such as ‘on background’ or ‘non-attributably’.
There are no dictionary definitions for these terms but here is what they are generally agreed to mean:
- Off the record: The information contained in the interview cannot be published.
- On background: The information is intended to inform your reporting of an issue but may not be directly quoted.
- Non-attributable: The information may be used but the interviewee may not be quoted or identified
There may be variations of these definitions – so there is huge room for misunderstanding.
The most important thing to remember is that when someone offers you an interview on these or similar terms, you first need to understand what exactly they mean by it.
Proceeding with the interview on this basis is essentially an informal contract between you and the interviewee.
- Do you both fully understand the terms of the contract?
- Do you both see the potential risks and rewards of proceeding?
- Does your editor know and do they agree with the interview going ahead?
Here is a checklist to help you decide whether to go ‘off the record’
The value of off-the-record briefings
- Access to otherwise unreachable information: Sources often reveal tactical, political, or sensitive details only in an off-the-record setting. This can:
- Help you understand complex contexts.
- Guide you toward lines of inquiry you wouldn’t have known to pursue.
- Provide hints for further verification through other channels.
- Understanding motive, strategy, and internal dynamics: Off-the-record conversations allow sources to speak more candidly about:
- What policy decisions really mean internally,
- The pressures shaping actions,
- Conflicts within institutions,
- Strategic motivations.
This context improves your depth of understanding even if the material itself cannot be published or broadcast.
- Building trust with sources: Agreeing to genuine off-the-record terms can:
- Strengthen long-term relationships,
- Demonstrate professionalism,
- Position you as trustworthy and credible.
- Improving accuracy: Even if the information can’t be quoted, it can:
- Help you avoid errors,
- Correct misconceptions,
- Guide research toward more accurate public reporting.
The dangers of off-the-record briefings
- Being manipulated: Off-the-record briefings are often used strategically:
- To steer media narratives,
- To shape perceptions without accountability,
- To plant ideas or trial messaging,
- To damage opponents while avoiding responsibility.
- Losing independence: Relying too heavily on off-the-record sources can:
- Create an unhealthy dependency,
- Reduce critical distance,
- Lead to you becoming an insider rather than an impartial observer
- Legal and ethical risks: If the definition of off the record was not explicitly agreed upon:
- The source may accuse you of breaking trust,
- Organisations may turn against you,
- Relationships may collapse.
- Clear boundaries are essential.
- Publishing unverifiable narratives: If you base public coverage on information you cannot attribute or verify:
- The story risks becoming speculation dressed as reporting,
- It can weaken audience trust,
- It can create editorial vulnerabilities.
- Encouraging secrecy: Excessive off-the-record culture can:
- Limit transparency,
- Reduce accountability,
- Create a political environment in which important personalities routinely avoid public scrutiny.
Best-practice behaviour for journalists
- Always define the terms before the conversation. Clarify explicitly:
- Is it ‘off the record’?
- Is it ‘on background’?
- Can the information be used to guide reporting?
- Can it be used if verified independently?
Never assume. Agreement must be mutual.
- Keep detailed notes – even if the material cannot be published. You will need to:
- Track who said what,
- Keep your editor informed,
- Revisit the material when new leads arise.
- Protect the source’s identity, abiding by your newsroom policies.
- Try to move the information on the record later, ask:
- “Can you say this publicly?”
- “Can someone else in your organisation confirm this on the record?”
- “Can we attribute this to an anonymous official?”
Push for as much transparency as possible.
- Avoid being used as a conduit for anonymous attacks. If an off-the-record source provides:
- Personal attacks,
- Political smears,
- Damage against rivals,
You should interrogate the motive and be cautious about letting such information guide your reporting.
- Verify everything independently. Even though the information is off the record:
- Treat it as a lead, not a fact.
- Cross-check with documents, other sources, or public records.
- Maintain professional distance. Be polite, trustworthy, and consistent, but not overly loyal. Remain independent, not part of an insider circle.
- Follow newsroom policies on confidentiality. Some organisations require:
- Editor’s pre-approval,
- Clear documentation of terms,
- Ethical review for sensitive topics.
Always comply with institutional guidelines.
- Protect source confidentiality rigorously. If you agree to go off the record:
- Honour the commitment,
- Use secure communication tools,
- Avoid sharing identifying details with colleagues who do not need to know.
Journalistic integrity depends on keeping such promises.
Summary of off-the-record interviewing
- Value: Access to hidden info
- Dangers: Manipulation
- Best practice: Define terms clearly
- Value: Deeper context
- Dangers: Loss of independence
- Best practice: Keep notes; protect identity
- Value: Trust building
- Dangers: Unverifiable narratives
- Best practice: Verify independently
- Value: Better accuracy
- Dangers: Ethical risks
- Best practice: Push for on-record when possible
- Value: Stronger reporting
- Dangers: Enables secrecy
- Best practice: Maintain critical distance
