When U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner visited recently, his staff initially requested that our interview be on background. We would not have been able to attribute his comments to him.
We insisted the conversation be on the record. Geithner agreed. We published a front-page article in which Geithner defended the Obama administration's efforts to stimulate the economy.
Geithner's staff requested what is, unfortunately, common practice in Washington, where reporters have four types of interviews with sources:
On the record.
Off the record: The comments cannot be published, but the reporter can pursue the tip with other sources.
Background: The comments can be published, but the source is not identified by name - also called anonymous sources.
Deep background: The comments can be published, but the source cannot be identified in any way.
"Background" and "deep background" are often insidious practices that compromise accountability, verification and accuracy.
"Talking on background gives officials, politicians, business executives and others a way to promote their own interests and criticize their rivals without leaving any fingerprints," said a 35-year Washington veteran who asked not to be named.
Not really. Just wanted to show how silly these practices can be. Those words come from John Walcott, top editor in the Washington bureau for McClatchy, which owns The News & Observer.
Walcott says there are certain stories in which background or deep background is appropriate, especially when the topics involve diplomacy, intelligence or military affairs.
"No one is likely to give you classified information or criticize an allied government or expose a superior officer's mistake with his or her name hung on it," Walcott said.
Still, Walcott and I agree that background and deep background are overused. Most journalists (and readers) would agree. The White House Correspondents Association has tried to get more briefings on the record, with little success.
Government sources want to control information. If a news agency won't abide, it will be excluded and could miss a competitive story.
At The N&O, we discourage the use of anonymous sources. In our staff stories, you see them occasionally. We use them on competitive stories when we are confident of our sources and there is no other way to get the information on the record.
You see unnamed sources more often in stories we get from wire services.
In the last 20 years, for better or for worse, our state government has become more like the federal government - bigger, more expensive, more driven by lobbyists.
When it comes to sourcing, we are determined not to emulate Washington. We will keep pushing for sources to speak on the record.
