Fuck. I just typed a really long answer to this and Barbelith crashed on me.
Basically, there are *degrees* of off the record. For example, Mr Y might tell a journalist: "Mr X, who often takes children on camping holidays, is a know paedophile. But that's off the record."
By this it is generally meant Mr Y is giving the journalist the information to act upon, but doesn't want his name mentioned in relation to the investigation.
There are also cases when, say, during a murder, the investigating officer will tell a journalist s/he trusts information such as "a hammer was found at the scene". Very often information which only the perpetrator of the crime would know is withheld from the public in order to give the criminal enough rope to hang himself in interviews, as it were. In this case, very few journalists would break this confidence, but would have a better picture of the story.
There might be occasions when you're chasing a scum-bag who will speak to you "off the record", in which case you might decide to fuck it and print it because they're a scum bag and need hanging out to dry. Of course, this means that it's all down to the individual journalist's morality and, let's face it, most hacks are scumbags anyway.
To summarise, "off the record" is a "gentleman's agreement", not a legally binding contract, unless of course it IS a legally binding contract such as an injunction or a D-notice.
There might also be occasions where editors get together and agree not to publish a story, although there would be nothing to stop them doing it. There was such an instance earlier this year involving Tony Blair's kids.
So, to answer the question: yes, I've acted upon information given to me "off the record", but I've never revealed a source. |
