You’re a farmer who has never been interviewed by the press before.
Suddenly your phone rings.
A reporter introduces himself to you and states the name of his publication. After a short friendly chat, the reporter says what he’s working on and asks a few questions. You respond.
After you hang up, concern hits you: what did you say? What can – and will – be used for the story?
Sometimes people regret or don’t recall what they’ve said. It seems odd to see their spoken words in indelible ink.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
Occasionally people say after the interview they wish to be anonymous or have the conversation off the record.
At what point is it on the record? As soon as the reporter has introduced himself and explained he’s working on a story, and the person agrees to be interviewed, the conversation is on the record and cannot be dismissed retroactively.
Before you demand your words or name not be used, think of why you’re asking the reporter to do this.
Do you have valuable information and need to conceal your identity to protect your job (a valid reason), or is it more that you’re afraid a quote will be taken out of context, shy or embarrassed about your grammar?
Journalists are reluctant to allow off-the-record interviews or grant anonymity.
By using the real names and information given, the reporter is giving the story its credibility and importance.
People should also be aware that an “off-the-record” interview can be interpreted different ways.
In the majority of cases, “off the record” means none of the information can be used.
However, on Parliament Hill the term means the person can’t be named, but the information can be used, including quotes.
