Beyond Off the Record: Using Traffic Light Protocol in Journalism

Informed consent is a key principle of journalism. 

Traditionally, journalists think about this when conducting interviews with sources, generally, dividing them into the three categories of on the record, off the record, and on background.

On the record is the most transparent level of attribution: anything in a conversation is fair game and the journalist can quote the source by name, so a reader knows who the source is and what their exact words were.

On background usually means statements may be attributed to the source and their position can be printed, but not their name. But some people want to share information that can’t be used as direct quotes or with any attribution/identification, which is sometimes called “deep background.” And, of course, some sites shy away from agreeing to an on background discussion or email at all.

Off the record generally means the information cannot be used, but is often misused, and there are disagreements on what it means. Can it be used as a lead for another source or to find public records in an attempt to verify the information? Technically consent for off the record is supposed to be established before an interview (or the part of it that’s supposed to be off the record) takes place, with both parties agreeing, or before an email is sent. (Simply marking an email as “off the record” doesn’t make it so, unless the journalist agrees before you send it.) Sometimes that doesn’t happen, which leads to a lot of debate. Should a journalist lean towards keeping a source happy even if they didn’t reach an agreement prior to the information being shared, or is their obligation solely to the reader? 

In general, there’s a bit of a tension between two ethical principles journalists try to uphold: seek the truth and report it and minimize harm. Reporters also think about source motivation before agreeing to anonymity–will the person face danger, retribution or other harm? There are a lot of other considerations, such as whether the source has experience with the media, whether they are a private person or a public figure,  and whether they understand the potential of legal ramifications and personal or professional consequences of being cited in a news story.

Beyond “The Record”

But many journalists are also members of their larger community, and a lot of discussions happen outside of work where clear rules and boundaries aren’t established. In some ways it would be a little ridiculous to do so–everyone, including a journalist, has the right to talk to their friends about their own experiences with other people. And even someone who isn’t a journalist can always write a memoir or a social media post, without any ground rules in place. As Anne Lamott said, “You own everything that happened to you. Tell your stories. If people wanted you to write warmly about them they should have behaved better.”

Then, of course, there are media briefings and events where “off the record” is often used when speakers or presenters want to feel free to speak their mind without parsing their words or getting permission or offering prepared, rehearsed speeches. This is where I find that things get confusing, because at these events, people are often taking notes. They may want to report on the event to their own managers or colleagues.

In these instances, I prefer to use TLP terminology, a government system for classifying sensitive information by signaling who it can be shared with.

Typically there are four colors, and you can check out the definitions and uses on CISA’s website.  

TLP: Red means you can only discuss the information with who is present at the meeting. This is for information that cannot be acted upon without significantly risking the privacy, reputation, and operations of involved organizations. Technically “off the record,” if used properly, would be TLP: Red, but my guess is that this is due to insufficient nuance in the terms journalists are most likely to use. 

TLP: Amber + Strict means you can only share the information with your organization. Typically this is meant to prevent harm while avoiding privacy risks as well as reputational or operational harm. 

TLP: Amber means you can share with people in your organization and your clients, but only on a need-to-know basis.

TLP: Green means you can share the information with your community, typically the cybersecurity community.

TLP: Clear means this information can be freely distributed.

This classification system isn’t quite right for journalism, either. Often there is no clear harm to an organization but there is the potential of harm to the individual speaking. Or maybe they just want to keep some information to a smaller group rather than having it broadcast and ripped apart in a gigantic Slack group they’re not in. Perhaps they're just nervous they'll accidentally share something they'll later regret.

Ideally we would develop a communication system that made more sense for journalists, but I think using the TLP system makes a lot more sense and reduces unnecessary restrictions to the controlled sharing of information. 

This level of clarity is particularly helpful for folks who are prone to overthinking and can’t figure out if they should feel guilty passing along details to a handful of people in a meeting that was designated “off the record” but in which everyone was taking notes.

Instead of saying a meeting is off-the-record when a speaker has no problem with someone taking notes to share with their team as long as their name isn’t used, they can simply say the information is TLP Amber + Strict, but without attribution. 

(Attribution gets tricky, too. There’s also the Chatham House Rule, where participants can use information received but without revealing the identity or affiliation of participants. It can be used in conjunction with TLP, but has its own issues. As public interest tech lawyer Kendra Albert wrote in their essay, “The Chatham House Rule, as a default practice with no option of attribution, privileges the needs of those who are not willing to have their views be attributed over people who benefit from attribution and credit.”)

Using the TLP classification system may also be useful for journalists when they are the ones sharing specific details about a story with a source, when they don’t want the details made public until closer to press time. It can be a bit confusing to tell a source something is off the record because they aren’t writing anything, but “I can tell you more if you agree not to share this with anyone” or “I can tell you more if you agree not to share this with anyone outside of your organization” is pretty clear.

I’ve heard stories about journalists recording “off the record” conference talks on their phone. And a journalist once admitted to me that they like the ambiguity in, for example, “off the record” briefings in which everybody is taking notes. They also said there would be no way for the person speaking to even verify if they kept their end of the agreement if they didn’t write about it. 

Information wants to be free. Of course people want to share what happened in a meeting or briefing with their manager. And most people don’t want to cause harm to someone who took a risk in sharing information they don’t want made public, for whatever reason. But it’s not always possible to know the reason someone chooses to stay off-the-record. Is it shorthand to stay out of trouble? Is it a way to make sure nothing is published by setting even higher standards? Is there a reason information that seems innocuous is actually really sensitive? Is there a possibility information will come back to them in a negative way? 

This is always difficult to tell, so the best way to establish consent is to be really clear about what the rules of engagement are. 

Mandatory disclaimer: Simply agreeing to rules doesn’t address technical limitations to keeping your information secure; that’s what tools like Security Planner (disclosure: I work on this) and organizations like Freedom of the Press Foundation are for.