Off the record is a bond between source and journalist. If a source told me so,etching off the record that was a self-serving lie, I might report. Otherwise never. the point is just public trust that journalists will keep their word. It’s got zip all to do with power or anything else. It not complicated. It’s a pure ethical matter.
"But I said to Gary, I said, you know, Gary, you go to certain sections and you’re going to need people to work in these massive plants that we’re getting, that are moving in. Where do we have the people? You know where we have the people? In New York state that can’t get jobs, in many other places that can’t get jobs. And people are going to have to start moving. They’re going to move to Colorado and they’re going to move to Iowa and Wisconsin and places where – like if Foxconn goes to Wisconsin, which is one of the places they’re very strongly considering – but if Foxconn goes to Wisconsin and they have a very low rate and the governor’s done an excellent job, you’re going to have a situation where you got to get the people. But they’re going to start moving. And I’m going to start explaining to people when you have an area that just isn’t working – like upper New York state, where people are getting very badly hurt – and then you’ll have another area 500 miles away where you can’t – you can’t get people, I’m going to explain you can leave, it’s OK, don’t worry about your house.
You know, a lot of them don’t leave because of their house. Because they say, gee, my house, I thought it was worth 70,000 (dollars) and now it’s worth nothing. It’s OK. Go, cut your losses, right?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/6660723.stm
Evidently not applicable to the coal industry.
Ironic, n’est-ce pas?
I particularly like the way he just slips in his belief that there will have to be mass internal migration (which he - the President, let’s try and remember - is apparently going to be doing something to ensure) into this rambling interview and no one asks him anything about it.
Yes, Exactly that. The source’s conscience is their own.
It was a rhetorical question, to point out that your statement would appear to be tautological horse-pucky.
No. It implies that they are a journalist and understand that ground rules can and should be agreed. And these rules are pretty well established between journalists and regular media commenters such as media pros and politicians. If a civilian said ‘that was off the record’ after saying something then I wouldn’t hold them to the gold standard - it’s not fair. But if the Mooch went on a rant with out prefixing it with OTR or ‘for background’ then nope, you’re toast.
Can’t you understand why journalists have to be seen to protect sources - even ones they don’t like?
And of course you do understand that ‘for background’ or ‘off the record’ doesn’t mean it isn’t useful - stand the story up, mofo. It also gets extensively used when a journalist rings up with a wrong story and there is a perfectly reasonable but private explanation:
‘II hear One Brown Mouse hasn’t been commenting for a while because OBM is in jail charged with multiple rape and murder’
‘Off the record, it’s true OBM hasn’t said much recently but you are 100 per cent wrong. There has been a family tragedy and OBM needs some time to handle - so I hope you’ll agree there is no need to intrude on the privacy of an innocent person dealing with a deeply saddening and difficult time.’
‘Yeah, alright, but if I find out you lied to me…’
‘I’d deserve everything.’
What’s the point in posting rhetorical questions? It’s like urinating down your own trouser leg. It might feel hot to you, but you aren’t impressing anyone else.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
