You have probably read a news story that quoted “a senior official who spoke on condition of anonymity,” or seen a spokesperson insist that a remark was “off the record.” These phrases are not decoration. They describe a specific agreement between a reporter and a source about how information may be used — and misunderstanding them is one of the fastest ways for a new journalist to burn a source, or for a source to say something they cannot take back.
What the ground rules actually govern
Every interview carries two separate questions. First: can this information be published at all? Second: if it can, how will the person who provided it be identified? The ground rules answer both, and it is helpful to keep them apart, because a source who says “don’t use my name” is answering the second question, not the first.
Newsrooms do not all use identical definitions, which is exactly why the terms have to be negotiated explicitly rather than assumed. Still, the working definitions below are broadly recognised across the profession.
The four common terms
| Term | Can it be published? | How the source is described |
|---|---|---|
| On the record | Yes | By name and title; direct quotes allowed |
| On background | Yes | By a general description agreed in advance |
| On deep background | Yes, as the reporter’s own assertion | Not described at all |
| Off the record | No | Not used; information is for the reporter’s understanding only |
On the record
This is the default in most reporting. Everything said may be quoted and attributed by name and job title. Experienced sources — officials, executives, academics — generally assume they are on the record unless they say otherwise, and reporters generally assume the same. Ordinary people being interviewed for the first time often do not, which is why good practice is to say plainly at the start: “I’m a reporter, this is for publication, and I’ll use your name.”
On background
The information can be published, but the source is identified only by an agreed description rather than a name: “a person familiar with the negotiations”, “a company employee”, “a European diplomat”. The exact wording is part of the deal and should be settled before the conversation, not afterwards. A description that is too specific can identify the person anyway; one that is too vague weakens the story’s credibility with readers.
On deep background
The reporter may use the information but attributes it to no one — it appears in the article as a plain statement of fact that the publication is standing behind on its own authority. This raises the stakes considerably, because the outlet’s credibility is now the only support the claim has. Most newsrooms require such material to be confirmed elsewhere before it runs.
Off the record
Strictly speaking, off the record means the information is not for publication in any form. It exists to help the reporter understand a situation, avoid a factual error, or know what questions to ask someone else. A common and useful follow-up move is for the reporter to ask: “Can you help me get this on the record from someone who can say it publicly?”
In everyday conversation, “off the record” is frequently used loosely to mean “don’t use my name” — which is actually background. That ambiguity is precisely why professionals confirm the meaning out loud instead of nodding along.
The deal must be made in advance
The single most important rule is about timing. Ground rules are an agreement between two parties, and an agreement cannot be applied retroactively by one side alone. A source who says something newsworthy and then adds “by the way, that was off the record” is making a request, not invoking a right.
In practice, many reporters will honour a reasonable after-the-fact request, especially from an inexperienced source who clearly did not understand the situation. But that is a judgement call and a courtesy, not an obligation. The professional habit that avoids the whole problem: state the terms before the conversation begins and confirm that both people mean the same thing by them.
Why anonymity is granted sparingly
Anonymous sourcing costs the reader something real: they cannot weigh the speaker’s motives, expertise or track record. Most editorial standards therefore treat it as an exception requiring justification. Typical conditions include:
- The information is important enough to justify the loss of transparency.
- It is not available on the record from anyone else.
- The source faces a genuine risk — loss of employment, legal exposure, physical danger — rather than mere inconvenience.
- An editor knows the source’s identity, even if readers do not.
- The article explains why anonymity was granted, in a short phrase readers can evaluate.
The last point is the one readers notice most. “A source said” tells them nothing; “a former employee who was present at the meeting and was not authorised to discuss it publicly” tells them a great deal about how much weight to give the claim.
Practical habits for interviews
- Identify yourself immediately. Name, outlet, and what the story is about. This is basic ethical practice and it also prevents most later disputes.
- Define terms out loud. “When you say off the record, do you mean I can’t use it at all, or that I can use it without your name?” The question takes five seconds and removes the ambiguity.
- Negotiate the description precisely. If the source is going on background, agree on the exact wording that will appear.
- Keep a record of the agreement, not just the quotes. Note when in the conversation the terms changed, if they did.
- Treat the deal as binding. A reporter who breaks a background agreement does not merely lose one source — the reputation travels.
- Be aware of recording laws. Rules on recording conversations, including notification requirements, vary significantly by country and by jurisdiction within countries. Check the ones that apply where you work.
For sources, the same rules read in reverse
If you are ever the one being interviewed, the useful takeaways are short. Assume you are on the record unless you have agreed otherwise in advance. Say what you mean by “off the record” rather than assuming the reporter shares your definition. Understand that the reporter is not obliged to accept a retroactive condition. And remember that a description agreed for background purposes may still identify you to people inside your organisation who know who was in the room.
Conclusion
Attribution rules look like jargon from outside the profession, but they are really a small system for managing trust: the source decides how much exposure to accept, the reporter decides how much credibility to trade away, and the reader is told enough to judge. The system only works when both parties agree on the vocabulary before anyone starts talking.
If you want to build on this — interviewing technique, verification, editorial ethics and news writing structure — the free journalism courses on Cursa take these fundamentals further in a practical, step-by-step format.
