Recording becomes an issue at off-the-record truth-telling session
In an earlier post we had told of an event called Non Fiction that was to be held at the Drake Hotel underground on Wednesday last. According to people who were there, most of the "off the record" truth telling by various media types was fairly mild and lame and occasionally puzzling, although former Toro editor Derek Finkle was quite forthcoming*. The following account was on the Professional Writers of Canada (PWAC) website, penned apparently by PWAC executive director, poet and novelist John Degen:
Short of perhaps requiring people to sign a waiver along with their entry fee, I wonder whether "off the record" in the context of a public event can have any meaning in the first place. I will be very surprised if a) someone didn't record it and b) somehow it doesn't find its way onto the internet.
*one of his truths told was that Toronto Life turned down his pitch to write an insider's account of the rise and fall of Toro. Seems a shame.
And the tales they told were off the record, so you won't find them repeated here. In fact, one of the most interesting parts of the evening was an impromptu group discussion about the meaning of on and off the record. After several of the speakers had already done their bit, a rumour hit the stage that someone in the crowd was making an audio recording of the event. What followed was a fascinating exercise in social dynamics as some in the room tried to ferret out the secret recorder, while others defended a reporter's right to do background research, even in a room full of media types speaking off the record.My question is: isn't there something a little weird about a bunch of writers and reporters and producers not only going along with going off the record in the first place, but also standing for someone trying to ferret out people in the crowd who might not be playing by the unenforceable rule? What's one person's "fascinating exercise in social dynamics" may be another person's "scary group-think".
The call from the microphone for the hidden reporter to turn him or herself in took on the feel of a cultural revolution purge before the courageous fellow took to the stage and declared his intentions. What followed was a passionate discussion about press freedoms and responsibilities.
Short of perhaps requiring people to sign a waiver along with their entry fee, I wonder whether "off the record" in the context of a public event can have any meaning in the first place. I will be very surprised if a) someone didn't record it and b) somehow it doesn't find its way onto the internet.
*one of his truths told was that Toronto Life turned down his pitch to write an insider's account of the rise and fall of Toro. Seems a shame.
2 Comments:
Yes, that was discussed, but as far as I’m concerned, that wasn’t the issue. At issue was the imposition of off-the-record status without negotiation, which no real journalist would ever stand for. I got up and complained about that.
In any off-the-record conversation, either or both parties can still take notes or record it. They just aren’t for publication. Apparently some of the many terms the kids who put the thing together aren’t clear on are “record” and “publish.”
My friend and colleague made the best point about "off the record" when the host claimed we didn't understand that the event was "friends, getting together over drinks, sharing secret stories" and that that was the reason we shouldn't share the details of the event with anyone.
"I don't pay $5.25 to listen to my friends' secrets," she said.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home