"Off the record" is a phrase everybody uses and almost nobody defines. It gets whispered at the end of a phone call, typed at the top of a message, dropped into the middle of a lunch. It sounds like a rule. There isn't one. No statute, no regulator's code and no shared dictionary fixes what these terms mean; what exists is a set of conventions that shift with the speaker, the audience and the relationship. That ambiguity causes real damage — sources who feel burned, reporters who feel played, readers who never learn where a claim came from. Here is how the labels are generally understood in UK journalism, and how to make sure everyone in the conversation agrees.

The four terms, and why they get muddled

Most exchanges sit somewhere on a scale of confidentiality. At one end, everything is attributable and quotable. At the other, nothing is for publication at all. In between lie two shades that people constantly mix up.

The problem is that the labels are not standardised. A civil servant, a campaigner and a tabloid news editor may each hold a different working definition of "background". Colleagues from American newsrooms use "on background" in ways that would baffle a Westminster lobby journalist. And because "off the record" has leaked into ordinary speech — people say it when they mean "don't tell anyone I said this", or simply "this is a bit sensitive" — it arrives in a newsroom carrying more meanings than it can hold.

The fix is boring and effective: ask, then repeat the answer back.

On the record

This is the default, and the least complicated. Anything said on the record can be quoted and attributed to the speaker by name and job title. Formally arranged interviews, press conferences, written statements and most quotes in a press release are on the record.

Two things are worth remembering. First, on the record does not mean every sentence will be used — an editor still decides what makes the page. Second, plenty of people who have never dealt with the press do not realise they are on the record simply because nobody told them. Reporters working with the public should say so at the top: "I'm recording, and I'll be quoting you by name."

Unattributable: quotes without a name

Here the words can be used, but the speaker's name cannot. In print it becomes "a senior official at the department said", "a source close to the negotiations confirmed" or "police sources indicated". This is the everyday currency of Westminster lobby briefings and a great deal of political reporting.

Anonymity should be a decision with a reason, not a courtesy. Whistleblowers, people who would lose their jobs, and officials discussing live diplomacy routinely need it. The test is whether a reader would accept the reason if it were explained. If the description is so precise that only one person could fit it — "the only female director in the division" — the protection is thin, and the source should know that.

Background: context, not quotation

Background is for context rather than quotation. The information shapes the story, but the speaker is not quoted directly. You will see the results in constructions like "it is understood that ministers are split" or "officials expect a decision within weeks". Analysis can be passed on without the person being identifiable as its source.

Because "background" is the vaguest of the four, it needs the most care. Ask specifically: can I quote you word for word, or only use the substance? Can I describe your role? Will it be obvious it came from you? A source who expects to be invisible and a reporter who intends to write "a government source said" have not agreed anything at all.

Off the record: for the journalist's ears only

Strictly, off the record means the material is not for publication in any form — no quotes, no paraphrased claims, no hint. It is given so the journalist understands what is going on and knows where to look. The story, if there is one, has to be built from other sources and other documents.

That strict reading is not what everyone means. Many people say "off the record" when they mean "use it, but don't put my name on it", which is closer to unattributable. When those expectations collide, someone ends up feeling lied to. The safest habit is to treat the phrase as a question rather than an instruction, and to answer it precisely.

Two further cautions. An off-the-record agreement is an ethical commitment, not a legal privilege: if a court requires evidence, the protection is far from absolute, and any story carrying legal risk should go past a media lawyer. And it is not a rewind button. You cannot retroactively make on-the-record remarks secret, though you can agree to stop and then discuss what is already usable.

The Chatham House Rule is something else

Meetings held under the Chatham House Rule let participants use the information but not reveal who said it, or who else was present. It is a group arrangement about identity, not a ban on publication. A speech under the Rule can be reported; it simply cannot be attributed. One more reason to check which label is actually in play.

Setting the terms: a 30-second routine

1. Ask before anything sensitive is said. "Before we start — can I quote you by name?"
2. Say the answer back in your own words. "So that's usable, described as a departmental official. Is

   Photo: erwinbosman / Pixabay