"Should the National Post have outed Francie Ducros' 'moron' comment?"

2002

Warren Kinsella, Liberal strategist

"Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Warren's Law and Journalism class. Today's discussion is about what can be used, and what can't. Rule one: off-the-record means just that. Put down your pen, turn off your tape recorder. Nothing gets used.

"Rule two: background - it's okay to print some information, but not enough to clearly identify the source. Both sides need to agree, in advance, about the appropriate way to refer to the source, and whether to use quotes, paraphrases, etc.

"If the 'moron' comment was made in the context of rule one, with all parties agreeing to abide by the rule, then the Post crossed the line. And it's a serious matter. In the U.S., for example, reporters have been successfully sued for breach of contract when they outed off-the-record sources, or did something that willfully/recklessly facilitated said source being outed.

"If the comment was made in the context of rule two -- with Francie and the Post guy both agreeing, in advance, face-to-face, that it was a backgrounder interview between Francie and the Post -- then no line was crossed.

"But here's a law school exam curve ball: what if there is an off-the-record/background conversation between Francie and some other reporter -- to which the Post had not been invited to participate, let's say -- and the Postie overhears a comment Francie has allegedly made? What's the rule then?

"I would say the answer is this: if he was walking past the two of them in a hallway somewhere, and overhears the comment, there's nothing to prevent him from reporting it. It's a good way to piss off colleagues and sources, but there's no hard-and-fast rule against it -- apart from the obvious ethical ones. It wouldn't matter if the overheard conversation was off-the-record or not.

"If the Post reporter overhears the comment, however, in (a) room in which only a select few are invited, having previously agreed to a certain set of rules (see above), and (b) is aware that everything said in that room is subject to one of the two rules, then we are back where we started. If all discussions in that little room in Prague, at that point, were background, then the Post guy was doing his job. If the room, and all in it, were in off-the-record mode, the Postie did a big no-no. That -- along with the accuracy of the quote, subject of next week's class -- is the big 'if.'

"If you are still awake, at this point in the class, it's a miracle. But I guarantee you this: journalism profs will be dissecting this puppy for the next decade." 

Re-reading what I told Paco, two thoughts occurred to me. One, I needed an espresso halfway through. Two, I have officially become what I always decry: a political hack who gets excited about North of the Queensway stories - and not the things that real people, in the real world, consider significant. Things like whether their taxes are going up or down, or whether health care will be there for them, or who is picking up the trash at the end of the driveway.

Can't you just picture Joe and Jane Frontporch, out there in the hinterland? Sitting at the kitchen table, looking (with bemusement) at the day's papers. "There they go again, honey," says Mr. Frontporch. "Getting all worked up about the things that are about them, and not getting nearly as worked up about the things that are about us."

Says Mrs. Frontporch: "Yep, they sure are morons, aren't they?" 

Guilty as charged.