In the media training sessions our company runs, I always ask attendees what they understand the term “off the record” means.

Most people say that they think it’s information that the journalist won’t use.

But that’s not the case – it’s certainly not what a journalist understands by the term.

After all, if they can't use it, what's the point of knowing it?

Instead, it’s something they can use, but won’t attribute to the person giving them the information.

In other words, if you tell me exactly what’s going on, I won’t quote you.

Sometimes, executives are prepared to do this for a variety of reasons.  They may just want the journalist to know the truth, but are scared of the repurcussions of being the person that blew the whistle. 

They want to see the story but they don’t want their name anywhere near it.  That’s often understandable – particularly if they are exposing wrong doing.

Sometimes public companies are in a ‘closed period’, where they cannot talk to the media about anything that could impact the share price, but want to get information into the public domain.

Or sometimes they may not be in a closed period but simply don't want to publicly discuss a story and add fuel to it.

I once approached a travel company following rumours that they were about to buy another sizeable company.

It turned out they had considered buying the company six months ago, but were no longer interested. 

They certainly didn’t want a story coming out that they were considering going ahead with the purchase because it was wrong and because of the disruption it might cause to staff.  But they were reluctant to talk about it publicly.

So, they gave me an off-the-record briefing.  The deal was that I could have the correct information and go off and write the story, but would have to say that the company declined to comment.

The information allowed me to write an accurate story, which pleased both parties.

So that's how it can work.  

But despite all this, it is a grey area and I always advise people to stay on the record when they are with journalists.

The safety position is to just be aware that anything you say can be taken down and used in evidence against you.

Otherwise, going off the record could backfire badly for you.

If there's a misunderstanding - or heaven forbid, the journalist doesn't play a straight bat - and you are quoted on something that you thought was off the record, it's quite a weak argument to say 'yes, I did say that and that's what I think, but I thought it would be off the record.'

As I said in an earlier posting, always ‘being on” can be tiring, particularly if you work in the travel industry, where I have spent a good chunk of my career.

It’s very sociable and you might find yourself talking to a journalist over a beer at midnight.  But if you tell them something newsworthy, you might also find your comments used shortly afterwards.

Journalists are often friendly, but they are not your friends.  They make money and enhance their reputations with their stories.

Remember, if you don’t want to be quoted on something, just don’t say it.