FWIW, the basic logic behind “anything not off the record is on the record” and “we get to choose the quotes” is that the public’s right to know something is more valuable than privacy, or the speaker getting their preferred phrasing.
Of course, whether that’s a good principle depends on whether the information is actually important (corruption etc) vs just sensational. And journalists don’t judge on a case by case basis, it’s just a blanket rule — which of course is more convenient for journalists.
> If I talk to a friend and without asking, share what they said, with their name attached, I expect they'd be upset.
I don't think I buy this as a general rule. Sometimes when I tell friends things I explicitly ask for confidentiality. Sometimes I expect them to infer the desire for confidentiality from the content of what we are talking about and/or the context of the conversation. And sometimes when I tell friends things I am fine with them repeating those things. What I think I do expect is that they will make some effort to model me and distinguish the things that are ok to repeat from the things that aren't. I think your real objection to journalistic practices is that they either aren't making an effort to model the desires of the people they are talking to, or they just don't care about the desires of the people they are talking to. And that is a legitimate objection. Unless other norms are explicitly laid out, which journalists generally do not do, it is very reasonable to expect them to behave like other people with what is said to them, and they often do not and do not think that they should.
The rule about on/off the record has always been in place. When I did media training I made it a point to tell company execs that from the moment they walked into the room, to the moment they left, anything they said could (not would, but could) be published. It's the rules of engagement. If you don't like them, don't do interviews. It's very clear, and very easy to remember. And the rule exists because it's easy to remember and stick to. Otherwise there would be all sorts of edge cases and 'he said, she said' going on.
In the few interactions I have had with journalists, not one has ever said that to me. In what other context does a professional interacting with a lay person not have to explicitly explain the rules?
FWIW, the basic logic behind “anything not off the record is on the record” and “we get to choose the quotes” is that the public’s right to know something is more valuable than privacy, or the speaker getting their preferred phrasing.
Of course, whether that’s a good principle depends on whether the information is actually important (corruption etc) vs just sensational. And journalists don’t judge on a case by case basis, it’s just a blanket rule — which of course is more convenient for journalists.
I think if journalists wanted to, they could have a better reputation.
> If I talk to a friend and without asking, share what they said, with their name attached, I expect they'd be upset.
I don't think I buy this as a general rule. Sometimes when I tell friends things I explicitly ask for confidentiality. Sometimes I expect them to infer the desire for confidentiality from the content of what we are talking about and/or the context of the conversation. And sometimes when I tell friends things I am fine with them repeating those things. What I think I do expect is that they will make some effort to model me and distinguish the things that are ok to repeat from the things that aren't. I think your real objection to journalistic practices is that they either aren't making an effort to model the desires of the people they are talking to, or they just don't care about the desires of the people they are talking to. And that is a legitimate objection. Unless other norms are explicitly laid out, which journalists generally do not do, it is very reasonable to expect them to behave like other people with what is said to them, and they often do not and do not think that they should.
The rule about on/off the record has always been in place. When I did media training I made it a point to tell company execs that from the moment they walked into the room, to the moment they left, anything they said could (not would, but could) be published. It's the rules of engagement. If you don't like them, don't do interviews. It's very clear, and very easy to remember. And the rule exists because it's easy to remember and stick to. Otherwise there would be all sorts of edge cases and 'he said, she said' going on.
In the few interactions I have had with journalists, not one has ever said that to me. In what other context does a professional interacting with a lay person not have to explicitly explain the rules?