Can we go off the record? No. Here's the ground rules

Ever since I arrived in Ottawa in early 2005, I've tried to be up-front and clear with all my sources on one crucial point: If you are a politician, a political staffer or a political appointee, you should always consider yourself on-the-record at all times if you're talking to me.

That said, I tell my sources when I meet them for the first time, there is still a way for us to have a frank, candid conversation where you could have a reasonable expectation your name and the things you say won't be all over the paper (or Twitter or this blog) shortly after. But if we agree, I tell them, to keep our conversation on a background basis and you tell me that the Prime Minister will bomb Iran in the morning, well, then, all bets are off and I'm quoting you and doing it as fast as I can. In other words, if I agree to keep our conversation confidential, it's a qualified agreement, never a blanket agreement. Always has been like that for me, always will be.

So what kind of conversations can we have and what are the ground rules? (This came up to today as I was explaining to someone I hope to have a lasting, productive source-reporter relationship with.) Here's my taxonomy:

1. On the record This is the best kind of conversation for my money. If we're “on-the-record”, as I think everyone understands, I will quote you directly and I will attribute by name and position those quotes to you. I will use information you've given me and identify you by name and position as the source of that information.
2. Background If we speak on background, I will quote you directly but I will not attribute those quotes to you by name. I will use information you've given me but not identify you by name as the source of that information. I will have to provide some information about you in order tell my readers why it is that you are qualified to speak on a given item. I want to provide my readers with enough information that they can make their own judgement about your credibility. I will also try to explain why I'm not identifying you by name. The very fact that you seek anonymity hurts your credibility. Because anonymous sources are less credible, they hurt my credibility too and that's why my organization, Canwest News Service, challenges my use of anonymous sources and restricts their use. Under almost no circumstances will my organization allow gratuitous political potshots from an unnamed source. You wanna piece of your political opponent? Prepare to put your name on it.
3. Deep background I will not quote you directly but I will paraphrase what you tell me. I will not identify you by name as a source and, depending on the circumstances, I may agree not to even provide a description of who you are. I may have to provide my readers with an explanation about sourcing information in this way but recognize that there will be some instances when I will have to refrain from even doing that. We routinely agree to give government bureaucrats “deep background” status during technical briefings about federal finances or new legislation but we do so knowing that the responsible politicians will be giving us an on-the-record briefing on the same issue. It is rare for someone from the political class to be given deep background status.
4. Off the record No one should ever tell me anything off the record because, in my books, it means just that: I can never put it on the record in any form. This is information I cannot use and, as such, it is useless information for a reporter. If it must stay off-the-record, tell a senior editor or a publisher. There is a place to tell a news organization something off-the-record — PM trips need to kept confidential, for example, for security reasons — but don't tell me (cuz I'm always trying to find out about the PM's future plans), tell someone way beyond my paygrade.

Two important caveats that apply to the above:

1. In all cases, you should assume we are speaking on a for-attribution, on-the-record basis. Ask first if you need to tell me something on background.

2. There are no 'shield laws' in Canada that protect the confidentiality of the reporter-source relationship. Judges can (and, too often, do) order reporters to identify their sources. I and Canwest are committed to fighting these orders. Now, if a judge wanted me to 'fess up on pain of going to jail, would I go to jail? Depends. Ask first. 🙂

3. In almost all cases, I will have to tell someone in my organization who my sources are. They may have to tell a senior editor at one of our member papers. We do this for our own protection and information like this is shared on a limited basis only with senior people.

4. If you persuade me to treat our conversation as background and then lie to me or say the same thing to another reporter on-the-record, all bets are off, and what you've told me in confidence, is now on-the-record.

That's about it. Any questions?