Before going off the record: a guide for company spokespeople

When should a spokesperson stop before sharing a fact?

Stop before disclosure whenever the team expects a limit that the reporter has not clearly accepted. A friendly conversation does not establish that limit. Neither does an invitation headed informal chat. The useful question is what both sides have actually agreed.

Imagine a technology founder discussing why a service launch has moved. The public explanation covers extra testing. The founder also knows about a private supplier dispute and wants to add context. That is a decision point, not an invitation to speak first and negotiate later.

The safest starting plan is a clear, named answer supported by information the company may release. If a restricted discussion has a genuine purpose, settle its terms before revealing the fact. If those terms cannot be agreed, leave the fact unsaid. This is a practical working boundary, not a promise that any conversation carries no risk.

This guide offers a proposed process for company communications teams. It is not a universal newsroom code or legal advice. Rules about personal data, confidential contracts and required disclosures need their own review. A reporter's agreement cannot create authority the spokesperson does not have.

Do not turn this process into a way to avoid a fair question. A difficult public fact may still need a direct answer. An uncertain figure needs checking.

A fact outside the speaker's remit may need a different source. Those are separate problems, and each deserves an honest response.

What exactly needs to be agreed?

Agree whether the information may be used, how the source may be described and which part of the exchange the terms cover. These are different choices. Keeping a person's name out of a story does not necessarily keep their information out.

The Associated Press guide to source terms supplies one explicit set of definitions. Its on-record information can be named; off-record information cannot be published. Background permits use under agreed conditions, while deep background permits use without attribution. AP warns that people understand these labels differently, so discuss the actual terms.

Ask the reporter to describe the proposed use in ordinary language. Then explain any gap between that use and the company's expectation. Do not simply repeat the same label more firmly. A clear answer to a short question is more useful than shared jargon.

• Content: Which fact or document is being discussed?
• Use: May it appear in the report, or is a different limit proposed?
• Attribution: What name, role or source description may accompany it?
• People: Who is part of the conversation and who needs to understand the terms?
• Boundary: When does the restricted section begin and when does named discussion resume?

A publication deadline is a separate issue. An embargo concerns when information may run. It does not settle whether a speaker can be named or a private fact used. Teams planning early product access should make the press embargo decision separately.

Nor should a company treat the whole subject as closed to further reporting. The journalist may obtain information elsewhere. Your working note should describe the agreed exchange, not claim ownership of the news topic. Keep the scope narrow enough that both sides can explain it.

How can the team make acceptance clear?

Make the request before the sensitive detail, give the reporter room to respond and confirm the precise agreement. The sequence matters. A qualification at the end of a long answer may arrive after the information has already been shared.

A useful opening might be: there is a separate point I would like to discuss, but we need to agree its use first. Describe the category without revealing the fact itself. Ask whether the proposed terms work for the reporter. Be ready for a refusal or a narrower alternative.

A short written exchange can help the participants remember the outcome. Treat it as evidence of an agreement only when there is an actual response supporting that reading. A footer or a subject line is not a substitute for acceptance. Silence should not become the team's permission to send the sensitive attachment.

Keep a concise internal note of the date, participants, scope and accepted source description. Record any unresolved point as unresolved. Limit access to people who need it. There is no benefit in spreading confidential material across the company just to prove that a process was followed.

At the start of the call, check that the people present match the planned group. A late arrival should hear the same terms. An interpreter should understand the boundary as well as the vocabulary. Do not assume that someone copied into an earlier email has read it.

Recording and automated notes need their own clear discussion under the applicable rules and permissions. Permission to record is not the same as permission to publish. Equally, switching a recorder off does not settle attribution. Check what a meeting tool is doing before sharing material that the team expects to remain limited.

End the restricted section explicitly. Otherwise a later public answer may be mixed with earlier material in each person's notes. A brief reset reduces that ambiguity. It also helps the spokesperson return to a useful named explanation rather than leaving the rest of the interview in doubt.

Can an unnamed source still be identified?

Yes: a role, location or project detail can make the person clear without printing their name. Review the whole description, not just the missing name field. The risk is especially easy to overlook when only a small team knows the event.

Consider a hypothetical company with one engineer responsible for a trial in a particular city. A description naming that role and trial may point to the engineer. Adding the meeting date could narrow it further. This is an illustrative scenario, not a report about an FL client.

The answer is not to invent a different role or conceal a relevant company link through a false description. The explanation of the source's knowledge must remain accurate. If a workable description cannot be agreed, pause the disclosure. A decision not to share can be the right result.

• Role test: Could more than one person reasonably fit this description?
• Place test: Does a site or city narrow the field too far?
• Event test: Does the timing reveal who was present?
• Document test: Do file names, comments or access links reveal more than intended?
• Combined test: What becomes clear when all these details are read together?

Ask how the source terms work within the newsroom rather than making assumptions about one reporter's private notes. Avoid promises of perfect anonymity. A communications checklist can identify an obvious exposure; it cannot remove every risk. Where the consequences are serious, involve the appropriate specialist before sharing.

Apply the same care to a document as to a spoken answer. Check who may release it, which parts are needed and what use is agreed. Showing a document on a call should not leave its later circulation unclear. Separate the document decision from permission to quote the speaker.

What should a spokesperson rehearse?

Rehearse the pause and the decision, not a clever way to dodge the question. The speaker needs to recognise when a fact is public, uncertain or outside their authority. A polished voice will not repair a mistake in that classification.

Use a few realistic prompts from the company's work. Ask about a confirmed launch date, a figure still being checked and a private commercial negotiation. The correct response should change with the evidence. Do not reward a speaker for delivering the same campaign line to every question.

For the uncertain figure, practise giving a named owner and a realistic follow-up commitment. For the private deal, practise stopping before details emerge. For the confirmed launch, practise a direct, useful answer. This makes the boundary part of ordinary preparation rather than an emergency phrase.

FL PR's international executive interview brief places evidence and speaking limits in the same working file. Teams can turn that principle into a simple question sheet. Each sensitive question should have a fact owner and a release decision. The spokesperson should not have to invent either during the call.

Evidence: FL PR's international communications framework treats local adaptation as more than translation. This is first-party evidence of a stated method, not a measured client outcome or proof that a restricted interview is risk-free.

Cross-border interviews add a language check. A Turkish phrase meaning general context may not establish the English newsroom term background. Explain the permitted use in a complete sentence in the working language. Ask the interpreter to preserve that meaning, not merely the familiar English label.

Review the rehearsal with concrete questions. Did the speaker reveal the detail before asking for terms? Did a tentative figure become certain in translation? Did the team promise a follow-up nobody could deliver?

Fix these points before adding more pages to the brief. A shorter file with clear decisions is easier to use under pressure.

How should a dispute or mistake be handled afterwards?

Start with the exact statement and the actual agreement, then make one clear request. Separate a factual error from a disagreement over use. Also separate both from disappointment about a story's tone. They call for different evidence and different conversations.

If the speaker gave the wrong figure, correct it promptly with a source and a clear reference to the earlier statement. Do not wait for publication to see whether the error causes concern. A short, precise correction helps the reporter assess the change. A replacement sales pitch does not.

Reuters' standards on checking back with sources distinguish checking facts from sending a story for source approval. Reuters does not offer that approval. Build your plan around accurate input, not an assumed right to rewrite the article. Ask other outlets about their own process instead of treating one policy as universal.

If the dispute concerns agreed terms, identify the relevant exchange and the passage at issue. Let one person coordinate the company's response. Several executives sending different demands can make the underlying facts harder to establish. Escalate through suitable editorial or legal channels when the issue warrants it.

A published factual error belongs in a focused news correction request supported by evidence. Explain what is wrong and what source supports the correction. Do not present an unwanted but accurate quotation as a false fact. Keep the requested change proportionate to the evidence.

Finally, update the internal process without circulating the private disclosure again. Record which boundary was unclear and how the next call should handle it. Keep the learning note separate from restricted source material. The durable improvement is a better decision rule, not a larger archive of sensitive conversations.

A useful review can be very small: what was agreed, what happened and what the team will change. Avoid scoring success by how much information stayed out of a story. The aim is responsible, accurate communication. Sometimes that means a strong named answer; sometimes it means not disclosing a fact.

Frequently Asked Questions

These answers distinguish a prior agreement from assumptions made during or after an interview.