What does ‘off the record’ mean, and should it be allowed?

I wrote last week about the common belief that Westminster journalism is a conspiracy against the public. I pointed out that “the lobby” – the group of journalists who are allowed access to the members’ lobby in the House of Commons – is more open and accountable than it used to be.

Briefings by spokespeople for the prime minister (and for the leader of the opposition) are on the record and most journalists are on Twitter, which means the public knows more about what they do.

But what about “off the record” conversations, one person (on Twitter) wanted to know. If information is coming from unnamed “sources” how is the reader or viewer supposed to know in whose interest it is being pushed?

It is a fair question, and one that journalists ought to do more to answer. My response is that anonymous sources are essential to good journalism. Often the only way to publish information that is in the public interest is to conceal its source.

There was an obvious example last week, with the leak of the decision to allow Huawei, the Chinese company, to supply non-core parts of the 5G UK mobile phone network. That story could not have been published if its source had been named, and there is now an official leak inquiry trying to find out who that was.

It was an accurate report of the decision taken at the National Security Council, and it could be argued that the public had a right to know. Indeed, the decision would have been announced publicly at some point, so the cloak-and-dagger drama is really about the principle of leaks of confidential national security information rather than the news itself.

And the defence of publishing the story sooner than the government wanted is the principle of the right of a free press to publish what it judges to be in the national interest.

There are less obvious examples of the use of anonymous sources in political reporting every day, however, and sometimes I think we should be clearer about what is going on. I do not think we have to go as far as the common US practice of saying, “...according to a source familiar with the matter who did not want to be named because they would lose their job”.

But I think there is a problem with, for example, describing a press officer for a political party as “a source”. The Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn’s office have been doing this for some time, refusing to comment for publication unless they are described as “a source” rather than “a spokesperson”. This allows them to put some distance between them and their words, allowing them to deny having said them if they prove controversial.

Indeed, I have heard of a Labour official insisting to a journalist that their words were off the record, not for attribution to the party, even as “a source”. The journalist reluctantly agreed, and asked what their comment was. “No comment,” said the official.

Yours,

John Rentoul

Chief political correspondent