In a recent column, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander highlights a growing movement among media organizations to end the practice whereby officials insist their remarks remain "off the record" at large public events. A number of groups are gathering signatures from news outlets on a letter addressed to members of Congress, federal agencies and the White House asking them to reexamine the issue.

"Standing in front of 300 people and declaring your words to be 'off-the-record' is frustrating for reporters, but it's also silly," Rick Blum, a coordinator for the advocacy group Sunshine in Government Initiative, told Alexander. "With Twitter, blogs and old-style e-mail, the lobbyists, bloggers and other opinion-shapers in the audience will repeat your words a thousand different ways before you step off the podium. But a reporter who respects the traditional rules of the road can't report what you say to a broader audience."

Spearheading the effort is the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), a print and online publisher of analytical material on topics like healthcare and taxes. The group is joined by SGI, the Newspaper Association of America, the Associated Press and the American Society of Newspaper Editors, among others. News organizations like the Washington Post will also be asked to sign the letter.

Some suggestions for improving relations between journalists and their political sources include requiring all speakers at an event to remain on the record or simply not inviting reporters to events if the organizers do not want remarks made public.

A similar endeavor is underway to overturn the White House practice of organizing "briefings" for the press wherein journalists are not allowed to name any of the sources of information. AP's managing editor for US news, Michael Oreskes, recently spoke out against this process of anonymous sourcing on NPR's On the Media program. WaPo's Alexander also mentions this parallel battle in his column, although he concedes the Obama administration has been making progress.

When newspapers allow public officials to dictate what gets reported and in what way, it is not just the journalists who are affected. It also makes the newspaper less credible to readers. Reporters are supposed to be the ones holding the government accountable for its actions, but that becomes impossible if these same reporters agree to only release the information the government wants to be publicized. In today's age of Twitter and citizen journalists, is it really possible to insist on "off the record" conversations anyway?

There are certain instances where agreeing not to publish certain information or using anonymous sources is perfectly acceptable, such as in the cases of highly sensitive diplomatic material or protecting the safety of one's sources. However, public events and official press briefings do not fall under those categories. Journalists have an obligation to demand openness, and public officials have an obligation to give it, if newspapers and other media organizations are going to continue to do their jobs effectively.

Source: Washington Post