Thats off the record
By Donald Kirk
The other day someone prefaced and concluded whatever was said by those three little words, ``off the record.” That’s different from ``on background” in that you can’t breathe a hint about sources, diplomatic, official or whatever, can’t actually quote anything and probably shouldn’t say you heard anything at all from anyone. You just absorb what they tell you and let it infuse your writing and view.
The rationale for accepting these conditions is you’re not going to hear anything whatsoever from these people except on these terms. You may be left with a notebook full of scribbling, but you better be sure whatever you repeat is passed off as your own, no quotes or attribution or reference to sources. The question, given these conditions, is whether you’ve been suckered into accepting someone’s line or have been privy to inside stuff that those on the outside are not going to hear. Reporters prefer to think the latter.
Move to ``background,” however, and the game changes somewhat. You can negotiate whether to attribute a quote to a certain type of source, maybe a ``U.S. source” or an ``American diplomat” if the briefer says OK to that. There was a time, two or three decades ago, when the eye-watering scent of tear gas hovered over the streets and violent protest was in the air, that American and other diplomats often briefed foreign journalists ― for ``background.”
These days, American diplomats are no longer so available. Could that be because of differences over North Korea, what level of ``transparency” to demand in dispensing food aid? Is there concern about offending South Korean leaders and officials whose policies have veered from one regime to another over the past two decades?
For want of access, we get to lounge outside the elevator at the foreign ministry, waiting for some visiting envoy or assistant secretary, after conferring with a senior South Korean negotiator, to grace us with two or three minutes of questions and answers before striding toward his waiting limo. The term for this type of hasty encounter is ``door-stepping.” The image of the horde of journalists is somewhere between paparazzi looking for a celebrity shot and a beggar hoping for a handout. The crumbs you get rarely justify the time hanging around. A favorite phrase is, ``There is no daylight between us,” meaning the South Koreans and Americans agree on everything, which strains credibility.
And then there’s the on-the-record speech. The American ambassador, Kathleen Stephens, lit up the Seoul Foreign Correspondents’ Club a couple of weeks ago with her smiling presence, beginning with an emphatic ``no to nuclear North Korea.” From there she went on to repeat everything we’ve been hearing from Washington for months, maybe years. ``We must work for denuclearization of North Korea.:” Check. ``North Korea needs to take steps to improve the relationship between North and South.” Check. ``China has an important role in North Korea.” Check, check. Oh yes, she was pretty firm about the need for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. ``I am very optimistic about prospects for ratification.” Check.
A few days later, Ambassador Stephens’ photograph showed up in the media bobbing up from the waters around Jeju, wearing a black wetsuit as she beamed on one of those legendary female divers who’d been with her in the lower depths looking for sea creatures. No doubt about it, this ambassador, winding up her tour here, has been a mover, athletically, whether cycling for miles or playing tennis or diving. Presumably whatever she’s said on these sorties has been on deepest background. Maybe that’s because one of her press officers is often with her as she cycles about. Would he be fending off the media there as well?
What do you do, however, if you’re shown a video at an off-the-record briefing? Is it OK to quote from the video or to say how long it ran or to praise its content as a fine example of documentary film-making? For that matter, what if there were two videos? Would it be a good idea to call and ask if they could be quoted since, after all, they were not exactly secret documents? But hang on. What if the briefers scrupulously avoided giving names and cards and you don’t know whom to call? That’s not to say such a thing happened. Still.
One thing I can say, though, is that someone who once worked for the National Intelligence Service gave me a lot of material, on the record, that is, his record, for a book I wrote. The book was ``Korea Betrayed: Kim Dae Jung and Sunshine,” and his material explained the scheming and influence-peddling behind DJ’s long quest for the Nobel peace prize and the massive payoffs to North Korea that brought about the June 2000 inter-Korean summit and helped to finance the North’s nuclear program.
My source for years has been in the U.S. looking for asylum. He actually got it, but now the State Department is appealing that decision. State sides with those who want him to face the music in Korea for revealing top-secret stuff. I’m not expecting anyone in the State Department to brief me on his case, for background or off the record, but one thing’s sure: he faces serious jail time if he comes back. The view is he must be held responsible for his deeds ― off the record, of course.
Donald Kirk has written books on Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines, most recently ``Korea Betrayed: Kim Dae Jung and Sunshine.” He can be reached at kirkdon@yahoo.com. His website is www.donaldkirk.com.