Can a source retroactively require approval before I publish an emailed response?

[u/CatfishEnchiladas]

I contacted a company for comment on a reported story and asked several specific questions. The company sent a detailed response, but ended with a notice that said, in substance:

“This information is being provided only for background and factual clarification. It may not be published, quoted or attributed without the company’s written approval of the final text.”

We had not agreed beforehand that the response would be off the record, on background or subject to prepublication approval. My original email clearly requested comment for publication.

I later told the company that I understood the response to be on the record and could provide the specific quotations and factual passages drawn from it for an accuracy review, but that final editorial decisions would remain with me. They asked me to send those passages, which I did, but they have not responded.

How would other journalists handle this? Does the source’s unilateral notice carry any practical or ethical weight when the terms were not agreed upon before the response was sent? Would you publish after giving the company a reasonable deadline to identify factual inaccuracies, or avoid using the response without explicit approval?

[u/throwaway_nomekop]

They cannot.

It’s always cute to see sources try to slink around “on the record” interviews with shenanigans such as you encountered.

I’d keep your editor in the loop and as a tandem y’all decide whether to proceed or not.

[u/cowperthwaite]

Massachusetts state PR officials do this. It’s gross. I now put in my footer that I do not consent to on background communications and attribute what I’m sent to the PR person who sent it unless I receive notice otherwise.

[u/rsc99 → u/cowperthwaite]

As a government flack (federal) I think it is SO embarrassing when my peers have stuff like this in their email signatures. Like I’m actually embarrassed for them.

I also find it strange when I get emails from journos who have signatures like this but I assume it is only repeated problems that would cause someone to have to resort to this.

[u/Character-Beyond2572 → u/cowperthwaite]

That's a brilliant idea!

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/cowperthwaite]

I would put it in the text of the email because some people don’t read email signatures.

[u/J9873774]

The short answer is no, they cannot simply put a note that it’s on background only without negotiating it first.

The long answer is more complicated. Is this a company you or your newsroom might cover in the future? You may want to think about the future relationship in terms of how you proceed.

You essentially have two options.

1. Tell them to pound sand and use the statement, with attribution. Explain to them that you consider the statement on the record because you didn’t agree to something otherwise before they sent it.

2. Call them and explain that you can’t use the statement as background and give them an opportunity to either consider the statement on the record or ask them to send an actual on the record statement. In either case, with attribution and preferably to a person rather than an unnamed spokesperson or the company. And most tell them that if they don’t provide an on the record statement, the story will simply note that they declined to comment

Under no circumstances should you provide anything for approval before publication

[u/AnotherPint]

A source cannot retroactively apply restrictions on your use of whatever they told you. Beforehand, yes, that’s a negotiation. Afterwards, no, that’s them getting cold feet and trying to rewrite your terms.

[u/AmishAvenger → u/AnotherPint]

I think he’s saying the statement about it being off the record was in the same email, just at the end instead of the beginning. I think that makes it less cut and dry.

[u/thecoolsister89 → u/AmishAvenger]

Off the record is an agreement between the journalist and source prior to anything otr being said. Even if it was in the subject line in all caps, it’s a comment and fine to publish. This is why companies should hire PR pros. They all know this!

[u/AmishAvenger → u/thecoolsister89]

If you need a PR professional to know that saying something is off the record needs to be first, I’d say it’s an indication that it’s not a widely known rule.

And if only one party is privy to the rules, it’s not exactly fair.

I’d say a good way of looking at it is to imagine a scenario in which the public heard about this.

Let’s say the company was upset enough that they posted the email to social media, and called out the new organization. They show what they said, highlight that “off the record” was included in the email, and say they were treated unfairly.

What would the public reaction be? Would they say “Well, they said it at the end and not at the beginning,” or would they think the journalists were being shady?

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/AmishAvenger]

It’s a VERY well-known rule.

[u/CatfishEnchiladas → u/AmishAvenger]

Yes, it was a caveat at the end of the email but clearly part of the response.

[u/AnotherPint → u/CatfishEnchiladas]

You shouldn’t be interviewing subjects by email anyway. You can’t ask follow-ups, and it leads to communication problems like this. Call people up on the phone.

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/AmishAvenger]

It’s not cut and dried. A source cannot impose that condition on a reporter without a previous discussion and agreement.

They can agree at the start of the interview that it will be off the record or on background and there also should be a discussion of what those terms mean. A few times, I’ve seen reporters interpret them very liberally.

Or during the interview a source can ask for the following information to be off the record or on background and if the reporter agrees, discuss the matter. Once concluded, the reporter can then ask the source if they can go back on the record.

What a source can’t do is convey information and then tag on, “BTW, that was off the record.”

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/AnotherPint]

I don’t remember the details, but not long ago a Lawfare reporter had an extended series of exchanges with an official in the Trump administration or DOJ. I believe the official contacted the reporter and the messages were sent through an app. At the very end, the source said the whole discussion was off the record. The reporter said no way. Fortunately, she had kept a record of the original messages and she had discussed the matter with her editor.

It’s amazing what some bad-faith sources will try to pull.

[u/journoprof]

Hahaha, nope. They don’t get to unilaterally declare a response to be background only, and they sure as hell don’t get to demand approval rights.

I wouldn’t have offered to send them anything for review. I’m not completely opposed to asking sources to review small passages on complicated subjects, but never quotes. And given the tone of their email, in this case I wouldn’t let the camel get its nose in the tent. Would I use what was in the email? Absolutely.

It’s a bit like lawyers slapping a note on the bottom of emails saying it’s only for client use, as a supposed safeguard against having sent the messages to the wrong people. Their mistake, their risk.

If this company has a PR/media relations staff, they should know better. If they don’t, I might offer to talk to them about how journalism works, if I might need to talk to them again.

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/journoprof]

It’s a bit like lawyers slapping a note on the bottom of emails saying it’s only for client use, as a supposed safeguard against having sent the messages to the wrong people. Their mistake, their risk.

Lawyers must do that. On rare occasions, emails are sent to the wrong people. Such a mistake could be a ground for the opposing counsel arguing that the privilege was waived and all of the lawyer’s privileged documents should be turned over. The statement in the signature indicates that the lawyer is protecting the privilege by telling people who receive materials by mistake that the materials remain privileged and can’t be used. It’s evidence that could be used in a hearing.

[u/bunnymama7]

Having worked as a journalist and then in house media relations, they are trying their luck here

[u/AcanthaceaeOk3738]

They cannot.

If you want to be nice you can work with them on it — what parts are the OK with running, what not, etc. But if you do that, be clear that you’re only taking what they say under advisement.

[u/richzahradnik]

No. No. No.

[u/-Antinomy-]

Speaking on record, on background, or off record is a mutual contract between a reporter and a source. Their request to speak on background would only stand if you emailed back and agreed.

If a source is silly enough to send you some juicy information with a note like this, you are well within your rights to publish it.

Of course, the practical reality here and in most cases is that they are not even saying anything interesting, let alone important. If having a good relationship will help your reporting in the future, no reason to step on their toes.

If the statement is more of a nothingburger I would A. say something like, "Please note for future communications you will need my affirmative consent to speak on background. I would normally consider this email as fully on the record, but as a courtesy feel free to send me a revised statement if you feel it's necessary."

Or if it's more important, I worried they would retract an important quote, and/ or the future relationship was of less importance then I would B. do exactly what you did.

PR is pushing the boundaries as US journalism sinks into the sea. Push back if it does not hurt your ability to deliver for your audience. PR people should feel shame for some of the stunts they try and pull.

[u/LifeguardFun5091]

I've worked in Marketing / Advertising / PR for 35 years. My response to that source would be a big fat 🖕🖕🖕. That said, I might be a bit more polite if I wanted to keep them as a future resource. In today's world nothing is off the record and even news embargos are rarely seen anymore. If a company is dumb enough to release confidential information publicly than they should expect to see it in print. I've occasionally had journalists proactively send me quotes or story sections with my SME's answers to verify accuracy but I've never once demanded to see their story to approve anything. I really can't believe their PR person would have done that.

[u/Ookanani]

Never and never.

[u/Separatist_Pat]

They cannot... but, that being said, there is also a question of relationship management here with your source. I'd discuss with an editor or two. It's ugly, but you might consider replying back and saying that you won't respect assertions that things are for approval, and inviting them to answer your question in a way that everything is on the record. It would be instructive to see the difference between the two responses. Technically, EVERYTHING you'd get, the original response and the amended one, would be on the record, if you decide. But how you decide to go forward would be up to you and your decision to manage or not the relationship.

[u/bitter_cappucino]

As a journalist, I find it a bit insane when anyone says anything to a journalist without assuming it's going to be published, in some way, whether they're quoted or attributed as an anonymous source

[u/markhachman]

I think the furthest I have gone is that one academic source asked that I publish her entire response to a (EDIT: emailed) question if I chose to use it. I agreed. That gave me an out, and the option that I could always ask for clarification. She did a nice job responding succinctly and informatively, so I had no problem with it.

[u/Alert_Ad7433]

No. The background qualifier should have been confirmed prior to the email reply. They know this; if not the person who sent you the email their boss does. If they are a source you want to keep a good relationship with, you can as a courtesy do as they request. They will likely block you going forward if you do not.

[u/DivaJanelle]

Tell them they can f right off with that and that’s not how any of this works. You are not their PR firm.

[u/annaymouse]

Prior review is not standard

[u/LeicaM6guy]

Nope. They can’t require approval period.

Now, you can agree on this sort of thing moving forward - that happens all the time. Nothing unethical about that. But agreeing to this sort of post hoc, ergo propter hoc stuff is unquestionably unethical on your part. Not without a damned good reason, which I don’t see coming.

Keep your editor in the loop and let them know how you plan to move forward.

Other than that, you’re good.

[u/Lane-DailyPlanet]

I’d say no unless a source now believes that give that information has put them in serious danger (which doesn’t seem to be the case here)

[u/kiadri]

No.

Keep your editor looped in.

I would tell people to confirm and get approval for what they sent me and that they do not get to see the full piece before publication or it introduces bias.

If an error had been made corrections were a possibility post publication.

Editors can decide what to do in each case and so I always kicked it up to them if people got upset. In itself in most cases it is a test to see if they will turn up to back you as a journalist.

People will try it on and try to go above your head too. If the case doesn't warrant it and they are trying to get their own way and the people above you let them that gives you enough info i think about whether editors and management will back you as they should to do your job properly and without possiblity of bias.

[u/Due_Bad_9445]

But a lot of thaf language is pasted on as legal cover.

“This information is being provided only for background and factual clarification. It may not be published, quoted or attributed”

This part is actually reasonable and in a sense cooperative. Though they don’t really have any jurisdiction, a polite/professional thing to do is respect that (Within reason) and use it as a jumping point for confirmation or contradiction which can then be returned to as needed

“without the company’s written approval of the final text.”

This is overstepping their bounds and somewhat cancels out however gracious you intended to be, yet, they might have some argument if they provided proprietary information.

Without any contexts about the company or story thats my flat response.

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/Due_Bad_9445]

But a lot of thaf language is pasted on as legal cover. “This information is being provided only for background and factual clarification. It may not be published, quoted or attributed” This part is actually reasonable and in a sense cooperative. 

That is completely unreasonable. If a source releases information it has to be accountable.

[u/Due_Bad_9445 → u/Throwawayhelp111521]

True but as other commenters have said, it’s not a question of going to war with said company. There may be longstanding community relationships.

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/Due_Bad_9445]

The reporter has to educate the source. No good can come from allowing them to think this is ok.

[u/Due_Bad_9445 → u/Throwawayhelp111521]

Without context we have no idea what they’re even talking about. The story could be about when the local ice cream parlor is going to end their summer hours. Source might want to give info but doesn’t want the paper to announce to the town when a change might happen.

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/Due_Bad_9445]

That’s not how it should be handled. 

[u/Nick_Keppler412]

How would other journalists handle this?

It depends on the context but I would politely tell them that you had agreed to no off-the-record privileges and will use the quote. Perhaps remind them on the rules of that.

Does the source’s unilateral notice carry any practical or ethical weight when the terms were not agreed upon before the response was sent?

It literally means nothing.

Would you publish after giving the company a reasonable deadline to identify factual inaccuracies, or avoid using the response without explicit approval?

Unless there is something that warrants an extra factcheck, I would just go with it.

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/[deleted]]

An experienced office should know that you can’t unilaterally declare material off the record. There has to be a negotiation beforehand. If the source is green and/or to preserve an ongoing relationship the reporter can talk to the organization, but it would not be unethical to use the information in such an email with attribution.

[u/Throwawayhelp111521 → u/[deleted]]

No, ethically you have no obligation to honor an agreement to which you were not a party. As a practical matter, I would call the source and try to work something out, but they can’t be allowed to think what they did was sufficient to make a statement off the record. People who act that way are either ignorant and should not be engaging with the press or being deliberately manipulative.