news focus

Published: 31/07/2003, Volume II3, No.5866 Page 12 13

Speaking ‘off the record’ is regarded as a risky business. But following the ‘rules’can protect public servants with a story to tell. Laura Donnelly offers advice

Like all good specialist magazines which seek to get under the skin of a story, HSJ makes significant use of unnamed sources - whether influential government officials and advisers, acute and primary care trust chief executives or whistleblowing union officials.

But what is in it for the anonymous source? In the public sector, one of the key motivations for those who speak to trusted journalists is a belief that government decisions and policy implementation must be explored thoroughly, discussed frankly and that those responsible should be held to proper and informed account.

Nonetheless some sources - particularly in the political arena - will always have their own agendas, and the thoughtful journalist (a little-known breed? ) considers whether the contact has an axe to grind before deciding what to do with the information.

So how can a public servant who wishes to air an issue do so while protecting their public anonymity? The key is to make clear one’s terms - at the outset of dialogue - and to flag up any changes to the status of parts of the conversation. That said, the ubiquitous phrase ‘off the record’ is perhaps the least understood concept in journalism.

Many contacts use it to mean that that the content of the conversation can be repeated, as long as it is not attributed to the source. But there is a stricter interpretation of the phrase: that the material should not be used at all, but is given to the journalist as a confidential explanation or to inform a decision about other material.

Given this fatal flaw, it is probably safer for sources to spell out more precisely the terms of their conversation - which parts are ‘on the record’ and can be quoted by name, which can be used ‘unattributably’ and sourced to ‘a trust chief executive’ or perhaps ‘a senior Department of Health official’, and which cannot be used at all.

Alternatively, very sensitive information which comes from a very authoritative contact is occasionally used unsourced, in phrases like ‘HSJ understands a deal has been struck’ or ‘the prime minister is concerned about the issue’.

A common device is to have a frank preliminary conversation ‘off the record’, then establish afterwards which points can be repeated and on precisely what basis.

Of the options, unattributable comments are probably one of the most useful arrangements for making use of sensitive information. The key is to narrow down the source as clearly as possible to establish credibility (a DoH source rather than a Whitehall source, for example) while keeping the group open enough to conceal their identity.

An example might be where HSJ refers to an un-named strategic health authority chief executive - with 28 SHAs in England, the chances of the manager being tracked down and ticked off for their comments are unlikely. But the former directorates of health and social care were a more difficult case - by the time they had been slimmed down to just four offices, off-the-record comments from their leaders could easily be traced back. In this case, the directors might instead be referred to as senior DoH figures, of which there is a wider pool.

It is a good idea to discuss with a journalist precise details of the way a source will be described.A responsible reporter would also take pains to remove any content which inadvertently identified the source - for example a geographical reference.

As well as direct one-to-one conversations with journalists, senior managers are likely to encounter the media at conferences and briefings. From a journalist’s point of view, the more open the NHS and those running it can be about the nuts and bolts of everyday existence the better. But fear of exposure can limit frank debate. From the point of view of those who wish to say more to their colleagues than they would like to see in print, Chatham House rules are one option. Under Chatham House rules (the phrase originates from Chatham House in London, home to the Royal Institute for International Affairs) ideas which emerge from a group can be reported, without attribution to individuals.

Finally, there is the use of information for background or technical understanding: the content of such conversations or briefings cannot be directly reported, but the information is used to improve the journalist’s understanding of the issue. These are frequently used in conjunction with complex statistical information, where clarity is vital.

Most public servants are cautious about talking to journalists - and in particular about straying from the script.

Those fears are understandable.

But building a relationship of trust with those who regularly write about your area of expertise may be the only way to ensure the NHS you read about reflects the service you manage.