Source Ground Rules Explainer
“On the record,” “background,” and “off the record” are agreements that define how a journalist may use information from a source. They are not universal magic words; their meaning depends on what the reporter and source explicitly agree to before the information is shared. In ordinary reporting, the default is on the record: the journalist may publish the information and identify the speaker by name and relevant role. A source who wants different treatment should ask, and the reporter must accept the terms, before the conversation moves under another rule.
Background generally allows publication of the information while limiting how the source is identified. The description might be broad, such as “a senior agency official,” or more specific if both sides agree. Deep background is a less common variation in which information may be used without any direct attribution, though news organizations define it differently. Because these labels can be ambiguous, careful reporters repeat the exact condition in plain language: what may be published, what description may appear, and whether the source can be quoted directly.
Off the record normally means the information cannot be published or attributed to the source. It may help a reporter understand events, test a theory, or locate documents and people who can speak publicly. It does not automatically mean the newsroom must ignore independently verified facts. If another source provides the same information on usable terms, or records establish it, the journalist may report what can be confirmed. Reporters should never promise confidentiality casually, because protecting an unnamed source can involve legal, ethical, and personal risks.
Ground rules serve both access and accountability. They can help people disclose wrongdoing or explain sensitive decisions when speaking publicly would expose them to retaliation. They can also be abused by officials who want to shape coverage without taking responsibility for their claims. Newsrooms therefore prefer named sources whenever possible, explain why anonymity is necessary, corroborate important assertions, and tell readers what the source is positioned to know. Clear agreements protect the source and reporter, but transparency to the audience remains the goal.
The safest time to negotiate ground rules is before a source reveals sensitive information. The reporter can pause, restate the proposed terms, consult an editor, and decline conditions that would prevent responsible reporting. Written confirmation is useful when the conversation is important or the terminology could be disputed. If either side later believes the agreement was misunderstood, the newsroom should review its notes and communications rather than quietly changing the rules. Precision at the beginning protects trust and reduces conflict when publication approaches.
On the record is the normal reporting condition. The journalist may use the substance of the conversation, quote the speaker, and identify that person by name and role. A source cannot usually declare information off the record after saying it; the reporter must have agreed before receiving it.
Named attribution gives readers the strongest way to judge authority, motive, and possible bias. Reporters still verify important claims and give subjects a fair opportunity to respond. Being identifiable does not make a statement automatically accurate.
On background, a reporter may publish the information under a negotiated description of the source. The wording should be specific enough to show why the person has knowledge without revealing an identity the reporter promised to protect.
Deep background may permit use of information with no attribution at all, but policies vary widely. That uncertainty is why both sides should avoid relying on labels alone. They should state the exact attribution the story may use and whether direct quotations are allowed.
A source needs to know the consequences of speaking, and a reporter needs to know whether the information can support a story. Reaching agreement first prevents a source from trying to withdraw a damaging statement after the fact and prevents a journalist from misunderstanding a legitimate confidentiality request.
Reporters often write the terms in notes or messages and clarify whether editors know the source's identity. If an agreement is unclear, the safest response is to pause and restate it. Precision protects trust better than assumptions.
Explore more "Explainers"
Discover additional explainers across politics, science, business, technology, and other fields. Each explainer breaks down a complex idea into clear, everyday language—helping you better understand how major concepts, systems, and debates shape the world around us.