Even White House Reporters Don't Like Interviews "On Background"

One of the most important techniques every spokesperson should master is negotiating the "terms of the interview." All too often, spokespeople go into interviews assuming one thing, while the journalist assumes another. Later, after the spokesperson has blabbed about your their product, bad-mouthed the competition and otherwise made a fool of himself, he blurts out, "this is all off the record, right?" Oy.

Repeat after me: agree on the terms of the interview before you start talking, not after. If you're unsure of the terms, ask the reporter what their understanding is. And don't say anything until you're satisfied. That's because you have leverage before you start talking -- you have something the other person wants. Afterward, the power is reversed.

One of the fuzziest interview terms is "on background." This term got started in Washington, and still has the most currency there. It means that someone is speaking not for attribution, and that the information can be used for background only, not reported directly. Presidents and their staffs love this technique, because it allows them more freedom to explain complex decisions without having to worry about making a "gotcha" goof.

Traditionally, the DC media has gone along with this, and I'm sure they will continue to in the future. After all, how many people can resist an invitation to sit down with a general or a cabinet secretary in a historic office building and be told important secrets?

Nevertheless, the DC media corps occasionally rouses itself to complain about this technique, basically for the purpose of trying to change the power dynamic, if only for a brief time. Last month, the press briefly fulminated about it and the story was reported on Politico.com:

After a “senior administration official” briefed reporters on a conference call about Chrysler last week, the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven circulated an e-mail among her colleagues suggesting some kind of joint action to protest the use of not-for-attribution sessions.

“We’ve been concerned about the needless use of ‘on-background’ briefings when it comes to sharing straightforward information,” AP spokesman Paul Colford told POLITICO, adding that the AP had “relayed” its views “to other news organizations in Washington” and is “eager to work with them in addressing the issue.”

But when the White House held two more background briefings this week — one on the president’s budget, the other on Pakistan and Afghanistan — AP’s reporters and all the other usual suspects were there.