Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="tomcat, post: 3140949, member: 961"] If it's off the record, they cannot print it because it is, well, off the record. So if a lot of it is information they can't print, it really doesn't count for much. However, if it's "not for attribution," which means the reporter can print it but cannot say where he/she got it, that's a different thing. Some people call that "on background." The distinction between "off the record" and "not for attribution" explains why reporters spend so much time chasing down a "not for attributoon" source who will confirm what they heard "off the record." 'Way back when, if a reporter accepted information"off the record," not only couild he/she not print it, they couldn't print it even if they heard it from another source unless they went back to the first source and were released from their no-print agreement. So it is no wonder that 1. Not many reporters back then were willing to accept off the record information; and 2. The rules got relaxed over the years so a reporter could use the information if he/she got it elsewhere. In any case, every reporter who is worth his/her salt knows not to throw those terms around until and unless the reporter and the source agree as to exactly what they mean. A reporter who burns a source loses a source, and no one wants to do that. [/QUOTE]