There seems to be a common misconception among interviewees about what “off the record” actually means when speaking with a reporter. At The Post, we have recently encountered people who later claim they didn’t realize something they said was going to be used in a story, despite the fact that every interview with The Post is, by default, on the record.
We always make it clear that we record our interviews, and our reporters are required to explicitly ask for permission to do so beforehand. Yet some still operate under the belief that certain comments can be taken off the record after the fact. That is not how journalism works, and this misunderstanding poses serious risks; both to the integrity of reporting and to the interviewees themselves.
The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics calls for transparency and accountability in reporting. Journalists should strive for accuracy and fairness in their work, and this includes making sure sources understand the terms of an interview.
The Post prides itself on its commitment to professional, ethically sound journalism. Part of our staff’s protocol when conducting interviews is to let sources know they are being recorded and that any comments made in the interview could be added to an article. We take our role as journalists very seriously, so it is important to us that the people we interview for stories do not feel blindsided when the article contains a quote they thought would not be included.
A lack of understanding about journalistic terms such as “on the record” can put sources in vulnerable positions. For example, when people believe they can simply remove a statement from an interview, they may end up sharing information that has personal, professional or even legal consequences.
This issue also creates an ethical dilemma for the reporter. Although journalists strive to be accurate and fair, they also cannot unhear something that has been said. When a source later claims they did not know they were on the record, it puts the reporter in a difficult position. On one hand, journalists want to create a good relationship with their sources. Trust is crucial in reporting, and if sources feel deceived or exposed, they might be less willing to speak in the future. However, allowing sources to take comments off the record risks compromising the integrity of the journalist’s work. Newsrooms have a duty to the public, and selectively withholding potentially crucial information undermines that mission.
If you don’t want something published, the best advice would be to simply not say it. But if you do speak, understand that it is ultimately up to the reporter whether they choose to publish your statement. At The Post, we are transparent about the fact that we record every interview, so it is safe to assume nothing is “off the record.”
Editorials represent the majority opinion of The Post's executive editors: Editor-in-Chief Alyssa Cruz, Managing Editor Madalyn Blair and Equity Director McKenna Christy. Post editorials are independent of the publication's news coverage. The Post can be reached via editor@thepostathens.com.
