Off the Record vs On Background: Rules and 5 Cases

Off the record means a reporter agrees not to publish what you say. On background means the reporter may use the information but not name you, usually under an agreed label such as "a senior official." Both work only if the reporter agrees before you speak. A statement made first and labeled afterward is on the record.

Last updated: November 9, 2026.

What do the four terms mean?

The four terms are on the record, off the record, on background and deep background, and each sets a different limit on what a reporter can publish and whether your name can appear. Newsrooms do not all use identical definitions, which is why the terms have to be agreed in the conversation, not assumed, according to PR Daily.

On the record is the default status for talking to a reporter in a professional capacity, per PR Daily. You can be quoted by name and title. Off the record means the information cannot be quoted or published, and on background means the information can be used with your name withheld under an agreed description, according to Red Banyan. Deep background goes one step further: the information can be used, but nothing in the story connects it to you, according to Tuckahoe Strategies.

The phrase "not for attribution" is often used for on background, but outlets and reporters differ on it, so ask what the reporter will print.

Why must the agreement come before the statement?

The agreement must come before the statement because a reporter cannot unhear something, and a label added afterward is a request, not a rule. PR Daily states that going off the record or on background is always a negotiation that must happen before you say what you do not want reported.

The rule protects both sides. Once the terms are agreed, a source cannot later say the statement was off the record, and a reporter who agreed to protect a source cannot force the source on the record, according to the City University of New York's News Literacy Matters. Both sides must say yes, according to PR Daily.

What do five dated cases show about ground rules?

Five cases from 1972 to 2018 show the full range: an agreement honored for decades, a dispute over unstated rules, two calls with no rules at all and a book whose author said the rules were never off the record. Each fact below is attributed to the report that carries it.

Deep Throat (1972 to 2005): an agreement that held

Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and editor Ben Bradlee kept the identity of their Watergate source secret for more than 30 years and said they would reveal it only after his death, according to CBS News. On May 31, 2005, Vanity Fair published an account in which W. Mark Felt said he was the source, and the Washington Post confirmed it that day, according to Salon. The lesson is that only the source can end a confidentiality agreement.

General McChrystal (June 2010): rules nobody wrote down

A Rolling Stone profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal was released to reporters on June 21, 2010, and McChrystal resigned after an Oval Office meeting on June 23, according to an Army War College journal case study. A senior military official said the command concluded that many sessions had been off the record, while Rolling Stone editor Eric Bates said the magazine had abided by every ground rule, according to NBC News. The lesson is that when ground rules are not stated conversation by conversation, each side describes them differently later.

Anthony Scaramucci (July 2017): silence is not a ground rule

Anthony Scaramucci, then White House communications director, phoned New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza in late July 2017, never asked for the call to be off the record or on background, and was fired on July 31, according to the Washingtonian. He later told ABC News he thought the call was off the record, per ABC7. The lesson is that an assumption of privacy has no effect unless the reporter agrees to it.

Steve Bannon (August 2017): no stated terms

White House strategist Steve Bannon called American Prospect co-editor Robert Kuttner, never said whether the conversation was on or off the record, and the interview was published in mid August 2017, according to NPR's interview with Kuttner. Kuttner said he had recorded the call, per Brandeis University's Heller School. The lesson is that an experienced source can still assume wrongly, and the reporter may hold a recording.

Michael Wolff (January 2018): a dispute settled by tapes

Author Michael Wolff said of his conversations with President Trump that whether Trump realized it was an interview he did not know, but it was certainly not off the record, according to VOA. Axios reported that Wolff had dozens of hours of recordings, as relayed by The Week. The lesson is that a reporter with recordings can answer a ground-rules dispute, and a source with no written terms cannot.

What should you say to a reporter before you share anything?

Say the terms out loud before the first sensitive sentence and ask the reporter to confirm them. A plain script works:

"Before I answer, can we agree on ground rules? I would like this part on background. You can use the information, but not my name, and you can describe me as a company executive. If that does not work for you, I will keep my comments on the record or hold them."

If the reporter agrees, confirm the terms in writing afterward:

"To confirm, the last ten minutes were on background, and you will describe me as a company executive. Please reply to confirm."

If you already said something you regret, ask rather than assume:

"I should have set the terms first. Would you be willing to treat my last answer as on background?"

The reporter is free to decline, especially when the information is newsworthy, so do not say anything you cannot live with seeing in print. The media interview questions for executives show which answers to rehearse for the record.

What is the checklist before going off the record?

Work through these steps in order before you say anything you would not want published:

1. Confirm who the reporter is and which outlet they work for.
2. Decide whether the information needs protection at all, or whether you can say it on the record.
3. State the term you want and ask the reporter to agree.
4. Agree the exact description if you are on background, such as "a company executive."
5. Wait for a clear yes before you speak.
6. Keep the same terms for the whole conversation, and restate them if the topic changes.
7. Send a short written confirmation afterward.

When should you avoid going off the record entirely?

Avoid going off the record when the information is damaging, when you do not know the reporter, or when you could say it on the record. PR Daily warns that an executive who says "this is off the record, but" can end up as front-page news the next day.

• You are speaking to a reporter you have never worked with.
• The information would harm you or your organization if printed.
• Several reporters are present, since one person's agreement does not bind the others.
• The topic involves a legal or personnel matter that counsel has not cleared.
• A written statement or an on-the-record answer would serve the same purpose.

When in doubt, decline politely and offer a statement, as the guide to declining a media interview explains. For the wider discipline, see the media relations hub and the guide to executive communications.

Frequently asked questions

What separates off the record from on background?

Off the record means the reporter will not publish the information, while on background means the reporter may publish it without naming you. Both require the reporter's agreement before you speak.

Can you go off the record after you have already spoken?

You can ask, but the reporter does not have to agree. Terms agreed in advance bind both sides, while a label added afterward is only a request.

Is a conversation with a reporter on the record by default?

Yes. On the record is the default status for talking to a reporter in a professional capacity, according to PR Daily, unless both sides agree to different terms first.

Can a reporter record a call without telling you?

It depends on the law where the call takes place. The Washingtonian reported that Washington, D.C. requires only one party to consent to recording a phone call, and other places differ, so ask counsel and assume any call may be recorded.

Is on background the same as not for attribution?

Often, but not always. Outlets and reporters use these terms differently, so agree on the exact description the reporter will print.