“Off the record.”
It’s a well-known journalism phrase. So well known, in fact, that even those outside the business are familiar with it.
But what does it actually mean?
The common belief among many is that when a source tells a reporter something “off the record” that means the reporter cannot or should not publicly share that information. But that’s not exactly how it works. Just because a source says something is “off the record” does not mean it truly is “off the record.”
Here’s how it should work. A source should ask a reporter first if something can be off the record. Then the reporter can agree or refuse. The source then can decide whether or not they want to share that information.
If the reporter agrees to an off-the-record request, the ethical thing to do is not report or even repeat that information. Off-the-record comments are supposed to remain strictly between the source and the reporter.
So that’s why it was odd when two journalists — two very prominent journalists, as a matter of fact — were at odds over whether something was or was not off the record. The incident even had other journalists mulling over the policy.
Here’s what happened: A Politico newsletter, West Wing Playbook, wrote an item late last week about Washington Post opinion columnist Jennifer Rubin. The item called Rubin “one of the most reliable defenders of the Biden administration.” It also wrote, “It’s been a mutually beneficial relationship. Though it often dismisses the Beltway press, the administration can leverage the credibility that comes with a washingtonpost.com link. And Rubin’s columns are frequently among the most popular on the site, according to Washington Post employees. But Rubin’s emergence as one of the administration’s go-to validators has stoked some divisions among Democrats and within the Post newsroom itself.”
There’s a bunch more, which you can read for yourself. But that led to Rubin reaching out to Alex Thompson, one of the West Wing Playbook authors and a White House reporter for Politico. According to Thompson, Rubin sent him an email with the subject line of “OFF THE RECORD.”
Thompson tweeted, “Since we never agreed to conduct such an off-the-record conversation, we are now publishing it in full.” Then he published Rubin’s comments, which were critical of Politico and came off as a little whiny, but certainly weren’t earth-shattering, vulgar or even newsworthy.
So was Thompson out of line or perfectly within his right to publish what Rubin sent him?
Journalism rules are on his side. He’s right. He didn’t agree to Rubin’s off-the-record request so Rubin cannot claim that Thompson broke a promise to keep her comments private.
Now, one could argue that what Thompson did was a little shady. He clearly knew that Rubin wanted to keep her email just between the two of them and he went ahead and published it anyway.
Some suggested that Thompson could have deleted the email as soon as he saw the “off the record” subject line. In other words, he could have treated Rubin’s subject line as a request to keep it off the record. If he didn’t want to honor that, he could have deleted the email. Or that once he opened the email, he was, in effect, agreeing to keep the exchange private.
That might have been the decent thing to do. But he wasn’t obligated to do so.
New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman weighed in, tweeting, “For the uninitiated - and the initiated pretending they don’t know because it’s a fun way to slam a reporter - off the record is an agreement. Don’t send an email saying OTR - especially when you’re ostensibly in journalism! - and not wait for the reporter to agree.”
She added, “This is really basic stuff, and folks in the current White House - many of whom have long experience dealing with reporters - know this. People can take issue with the timing of a story or the subject of a story. But suggesting the reporter did something nefarious when the person didn't follow the way OTR works is wrong.”
Rubin tweeted back, “no, just really low class when dealing with a fellow journalist on something not a newsworthy scoop! I mean really, who behaves that way…”
Haberman wasn’t having it, tweeting: “Why is this his responsibility and not yours to know how journalism works?
So bottom line: Thompson’s reputation might take a hit among some for publishing something that Rubin asked to be off the record, but he didn’t break one of journalism’s golden rules and Rubin should have known better than to simply trust Thompson wouldn’t run what she sent him.
Breyer’s retirement plans
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was interviewed by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday. The biggest question, of course, is how much longer Breyer is going to remain on the bench. Many on the left are pushing for the liberal Breyer, who turned 83 last month, to step down while there is a Democrat in the White House.
Zakaria asked a good question: “So is this ideal of a nonpolitical court, of a nonpartisan court, so important to you that you are willing to risk the fact that your successor might undo much of what you regard as the good you’ve done and might take the court and the country in a very different direction?”
Breyer knew exactly what Zakaria was getting at.
“Now, what you’re doing is asking about — will I retire, and eventually I will,” Breyer said. “I don’t want to die there in office, and I haven’t decided exactly when, but there are a lot of considerations and I hope I take them all into account properly. And when the time comes to announce something, I will. But not here now.”
This is what Breyer has been saying for a while now. He told The New York Times’ Adam Liptak pretty much the same thing last month. But Breyer still hasn’t detailed an exit plan.
Breyer has a new book out: “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics.” It’s a quick read — just 101 pages. Breyer idealistically writes that the Supreme Court shouldn’t be seen as a partisan institution. But in a column (with the headline “Breyer’s airbrushed portrayal of the judicial process”), Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Ruth Marcus asks if the timing of Breyer’s book could be any worse. Marcus writes the book “comes on the heels of the decision by five (Supreme Court justices) to let a blatantly unconstitutional Texas abortion law take effect.”
Marcus went on to write, “I don’t want to sound too acerbic about Breyer here. I like and respect him. Even more, I feel for him. If you have devoted your life to an institution, and fear for its future, it is painful to watch, no less acknowledge, what is happening to it.”
An appeal to the unvaccinated
