On the Record

Al Smith's frequent use of the phrase "off the record" gave a new boost to an old, and often helpful, journalistic practice. It permitted top Government officials to let down their hair before the press --without getting into trouble in the process. By giving a frank--and unquotable--explanation of the background behind official actions, bigwigs had often helped reporters do a better job of interpreting the news. But the handy phrase has long since gotten out of hand. Last week Managing Editor Norman E. Isaacs of the St. Louis Star-Times charged that editors who persisted in kowtowing to "off the record" were "frequently guilty of suppressing news."

In the Bulletin of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Isaacs put it on the record: "Entirely too much public information is being bottled up ... [Nowadays, even] some 15th assistant to an assistant secretary can succeed in bamboozling some of the best news hands in the country. But, worse . . . state and city officials have cabbaged on to this beautiful protective machinery we have placed in their hands. All they have to say is: 'This is off the record, boys,' and our reporters can then trot in dutifully and tell us that they know the whole story, but that they can't write it ...

"One of the vicious sides to [this ridiculous] practice is that often you are bound in such a manner that you cannot go to any other source to get the story . . . Every time you bind yourself in one of these absurd confidences, you get scooped. Let the pundits take over all the off-the-record conferences. Let them use the oblique references. Let our own staffs go back to reporting."

The Star-Times was already practicing what Isaacs was preaching. His instructions to his staff: "When they say, 'This is off the record,' you just say you're sorry . . . and walk out. You can always find out what [they're] trying to freeze up on. It's your job to crack that story."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.