I am in an invidious position this week. I want to talk about sources, note-taking and not relying on memory in the light of the Peter Costello dinner with the three senior press gallery journalists in 2005.
The trouble is I made a boo-boo in last week’s column which might somewhat tarnish my credibility. The correction and apology appear at the bottom of column.
Ok, go and have a sneak preview, but promise you’ll come back.
So you are back.
Of course, politicians and journalists have lunches and dinners together. They are cooped up under one roof in a symbiotic hotbed of we need you and you need us.
The surprising thing is that in this hotbed, the rules and the language have not been more clearly delineated.
At the dinner, according to the journalists, Costello said he would destroy the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard from the backbench if Howard did not stand aside for him by mid-term (mid 2006). Costello acknowledges the dinner and a political discussion but denies the threat.
In any event, Costello says the dinner with the Bulletin’s Paul Daley and Tony Wright and the ABC’s Michael Brissenden was “off the record”. Brissenden said it was “non-attributable off the record” – meaning you could use the information but not attribute its source — at the time of the conversation and that the day afterwards, after some persuasion by people in Costello’s office, they agreed that the whole conversation would be “off the record”. The other two journalists agree with that.
Presumably, if the journalists’ account is correct Costello thought that it might be useful to his ambitions that it be known that he was in the leadership game and the timing of it, but it would not be useful if he were seen as the author of the information.
Costello was hauled up by veteran press gallery journalist Michelle Grattan when he attempted to say the conversation was “off the record” rather than “non-attributable off the record” and that he did not think the contents of the conversation would ever go public.
Grattan’s point was that someone of Costello’s experience would know the difference.
I’m not so sure. So many terms are bandied about over the use of material and its attribution that misunderstandings are inevitable.
Jerald terHorst (subs: correct), who was President Gerald Ford’s press secretary, outlined four categories of information. “On the record” means the material can be used and attributed to the speaker by name and title. “On background” means that statements are directly quotable but can only be attributed in general terms, such as department spokesperson. “On deep background” means the information can be used but cannot be directly quoted nor attributed. And fourthly, “off the record” means the information is for the reporter’s information only and cannot be made public. Nor can it be taken to another source for confirmation.
Many Australian journalists and politicians would understand terHorst’s categories, but might well disagree with the labels he has put on them.
Outside the world of politics, the labels would have even less precision and be ripe for misunderstanding.
I advise journalism students to avoid phrases like “off the record” and “background” altogether. Instead, I suggest, they should get a clear understanding with their informant about two things: what material can be published and how can it be attributed (if at all).
“Background” to some people means not for publication at all. To others it means the journalist can state it only as unattributed information and not attributed to “a spokesperson”. To still others it might mean that it can be attributed generally, for example, to “industry sources”.
The Costello story illustrates some other interesting points. In what circumstances can either side renege on whatever deal was made?
As a matter of practicality, a Treasurer is in a strong position to renegotiate something he might have said over some wine at a dinner. After all, journalists need to keep good relations with senior politicians.
But the code of ethics of the journalists’ union and the codes of many news organisations say confidences should be kept, no matter what. (Though I would add the rider unless national or personal safety are at risk. If someone tells me in confidence they are going to kill someone, I would not feel bound.)
The other point is that in politics these days, journalists have supped with the devil for too long, to their own disadvantage. Far too many journalists have accepted material with various degrees of confidentiality, especially from government. Individual journalists think they can get the jump with a story announcing some policy attributed to “government sources” or without attribution.
They are being manipulated. It means the story gets unjustified greater prominence because it is “exclusive” and it means the material is published uncritically because confidentiality forbids seeking comment from others before publication.
There is no serious reason for the confidentiality other than manipulation. Journalists should resist it.
But confidentiality has a major role in journalism and public affairs. It is when an informant genuinely fears for his or her job or other retaliation and the information shows some malfeasance or other activity which should be exposed in the public interest. But not political tittle tattle.
These journalists got it wrong. If Costello said those things and it was for publication but not attributable, they should not allowed themselves to be heavied into renegotiating. It was in the public interest that Costello’s intention be known. It was and still is in the public interest that it be known that having said he would run for leader he never had the spine to do it. And it is now in the public interest to know whether he lied in denying the conversation.
It would be helpful to see the notes. If the notes come out, let’s hope they are in a form that I urge upon my students: in a bound notebook with the conversation with each source dated sequentially. That form adds to credibility. At least you would not get the date of the dinner wrong.
BLOB Some readers kindly (and others not so kindly pointed out that “The Peter Principle” was written by Dr Laurence J Peter (with later editions co-authored by Raymond Hull) and not by C. Northcote Parkinson, as I had it last week. Apologies to readers and the authors.
Crispin Hull lectures in journalism at the University of Canberra.