« Norway's financial strength | Main | Israeli ambassador compares Gaza attack to British bombing of Nazi Germany »

07 March 2008

Comments

Ted

I think it's legitimate to use it. In my view, 'off the record' only applies when the person is fully aware of what they were about to say but would rather it wasn't made public so invites the journalist(s) into their confidence. By stating it at the start of the conversation, it allows the journalist(s) to state whether they'll accept that confidence (usually tacit) or whether they will report it so it's best not to say anything (in which case, they should make that clear). It's not really intended to cover up faux pas, digs at your opponent or any other error on your part by retrospectively shouting 'off the record' as if it's some magical statement with the power to wipe memory banks. It's a lesson in thinking before you open your gob. Anyway, the Clinton and Obama camps are both vile, constantly sniping at each other, indulging in dirty tricks, so I don't think anyone owes them anything in pretending this isn't happening. It's a pity both of them can't lose.

BTW Osama, in your other post you refer to the Blitz - this, of course, refers to the bombing of Britain by Nazi Germany, not vice versa as you seem to suggest.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Buttons



View Osama Saeed's profile on LinkedIn

Feeds


  • Subscribe in Bloglines

    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to Google


  • Enter your email address:

    Get alerts of new posts