Writing well
Off the record?
By Jim Stasiowski
The most maddening sound in newsrooms is this from a reporter: “So, can you tell me off the record?”
Getting information off-the-record can be useful. Reporters should know as much insider information as possible. Thus, unlike some journalism purists, I accept an occasional off-the-record discussion with a source.
But I object when reporters are offering the protection of off the record. Make the source ask for it.
Reporters have too few weapons for getting sources to give good, usable information. The reporter who gets the reputation for liberally offering to go off-the-record is inviting a lifetime of wimpy responses.
Let’s start by agreeing on the unagreeable: No one is sure what “off the record” means.
Even experienced, savvy reporters and editors argue about it. Some journalists say that when a source goes off the record, what he or she is saying is usable, but only if the reporter uses it to pursue other reporting.
Others – and I’m in this group – insist that “off the record” means the reporter can do nothing with the information. In other words, off-the-record information may not venture outside the reporter’s brain.
An editor I worked for would explode whenever he heard a reporter allowing a source to go off the record. His point was that if journalists cannot agree about what “off the record” means, we can hardly expect our sources to know.
He told me: “When a source asks to go ‘off the record,’ tell him or her to stop talking. Then ask the source to define what he or she means by ‘off the record.’ After you know what the source means, decide what to do about the source’s request.”
That’s sage advice. When most sources say “off the record,” what they really mean is: “You may use this information if you can get it elsewhere, but don’t use it until you get it elsewhere, and don’t tell anyone you first got it from me.”
According to a document from The Poynter Institute, The Washington Post recognizes an in-between term, “for guidance,” which is neither “off the record” nor “for attribution.” “For guidance” means the source is giving the reporter confidential information that the reporter may feel free to chase.
If “off the record” means we can do nothing with the information, we probably should never grant a source such protection.
Let’s say we call Source A, and after exhausting his on-the-record help, he requests to go off the record. We agree.
He then says, “Source B had tax problems five years ago.”
Now, even if we were planning to check Source B’s tax records, the off-the-record comment makes such checking dangerous. If the story includes Source B’s tax problems, Source A may assert that we violated the off-the-record agreement.
Of course, the reporter’s conscience would be clear; even before talking to Source A, the reporter had planned to check on Source B’s taxes. But Source A would have cause to no longer trust the reporter.
That’s the beauty of spelling out, in plain language, what the source means by “off the record.”
In a larger sense, the use of the off-the-record agreement is yet another confirmation of how weak we reporters are. Here’s the nightmare example.
Sally calls Source A and has an extremely relevant big question to ask him. After going through the preliminary conversation and questions, Sally arrives at The Big One.
Source A is ready. He immediately says, “Off the record?”
Uh-oh.
Sally agrees, and Source A gives a candid, meaningful answer.
She cannot use it. And, if Source A strictly interprets “off the record,” he has just skillfully put Sally in the position of not being able to chase that information.
Then, let’s say Sally and Source A go back on the record. Sally, still needing an answer to The Big One, repeats the question, and Source A delivers an evasive, fancy-sounding but meaningless quotation.
At that point, Sally is stuck. She obviously cannot write either, “Source A could not be reached for comment,” nor, “Source A had no comment.” Instead, Sally, who got the truth off the record, is stuck with writing something that misleading.
We are too quick to grant a source’s request to go off the record, and we make matters much worse when we offer that refuge. We offer it, I fear, because it’s a collegial, collaborative thing to do. In short, we want our sources to like us.
Our sources want us to want them to like us. For them, it beats telling the truth.
THE FINAL WORD: Inexplicably, most writers love to use the adjective “roughly” to mean “about”: “The county has roughly 3,800 acres of parks.”
To me, “roughly” conveys the antithesis of the image we want readers to get from our newspapers. “Roughly” implies ragged, untidy, unrefined. It seems to say we’re happy to settle for being somewhere in the neighborhood of the truth. Choose “about” for most such instances.
Jim Stasiowski, the writing coach for the Dolan Media Co., welcomes your questions or comments. Call him at 775 354-2872 or write to 2499 Ivory Ann Drive, Sparks, Nev. 89436.
Dos and don’ts of letters to the editor
By Jim Pumarlo
Letters to the editor truly are the lifeblood of editorial pages. Letters underscore the value of editorial pages and represent an active citizenry.
But the letters column, if it is to serve its greatest purpose, must be monitored or it can quickly become nondescript. The dos and don’ts of letters should be well understood by everyone at the newspaper, and it is equally important to let readers know the ground rules.
Too often, editors give free reign to letters and are hesitant to impose restrictions on “free expression” of ideas. In reality, a letters column without policies may prove more detrimental than beneficial to the exchange of ideas.
Here’s a list of basic dos and don’ts to ensure that the letters column will remain relevant:
Limit length: Readers have limited attention span for lengthy stories. The same is true for letters. Editors are doing the writers a favor by imposing limits; 350 words is a good starting point.
Limit frequency of authors: Individuals should be limited to one letter per month, except in the case of rebuttals (see next item).
Be ready for rebuttals: Exchanges among writers should be limited to two letters from each individual on a particular subject – in other words, a letter and a rebuttal, plus a counter-rebuttal from each writer. After that, the readers can carry on their conversation privately. Writers will complain that the other person “had the last word,” but that always will be the case – no matter how long an exchange continues.
Give priority to local opinions: In general, letters should be accepted from local readers only. An exception might be a letter on a local topic from a recognized expert who lives outside the area.
Reject mass-produced letters: The churn of orchestrated campaigns is increasing, and not only during election season. Mass-produced letters – even if submitted by a local resident – should be rejected.
Verify letters: All letters should be verified prior to publication, preferably by a phone call. Editors should require name, full address and telephone number on all submissions.
Reject thank-you letters: Publication of “thank yous” dilutes the letters column. There are exceptions, of course, such as in the stranded out-of-town motorist who wants to pass along appreciation for the after-hours assistance by a local service station. In most instances, however, “thank you” letters are a shortcut for organizations that seek to save the time and expense of writing a personal note to individuals who contributed to the success of an event.
Letters are no substitute for news stories: Only in rare circumstances should editors accept letters promoting an event or program. Once you say “yes” to one, it’s nearly impossible to say “no” to another.
Be conscious of display: Be sensitive to the prominence letters receive – how they are displayed – especially those that present opposing views on the same issue.
Edit aggressively: Make readers aware that letters are edited aggressively, especially those that repeat themes.
Stick to public issues: Letters should be restricted to public issues or issues that come before public bodies. Compliments and/or criticism of private organizations and businesses are not regular subjects for letters.
Identify authors where appropriate: Letters should carry a note identifying the writer if it’s germane to the letter. For example, a writer might be identified as a nuclear engineer if the letter addresses nuclear energy.
Newspapers have the opportunity to weigh in on issues. Vibrant editorials will prompt a healthy exchange of opinions – if editors do not overstep their bounds. In other words, resist the temptation to add a postscript to letters. Editor’s notes might be appropriate to correct an error in fact or a grossly overstated accusation, but they should not be tacked on to defend or restate the newspaper’s position.
Take the instance when an editor went so far as to discredit a writer in an editorial the same day the letter appeared. The display of one-upmanship was duly noted by another reader in a follow-up letter, landing an appropriate blow to the newspaper’s mission of fair play.
Jim Pumarlo writes, speaks and provides training on Community Newsroom Success Strategies. He is author of “Votes and Quotes: A Guide to Outstanding Election Coverage” and “Bad News and Good Judgment: A Guide to Reporting on Sensitive Issues in a Small-Town Newspaper.” He can be contacted at www.pumarlo.com.