How to navigate a mid-interview off the record request

Going 'off the record' is a standard journalistic technique. It helps potential sources to feel more at ease and speak more freely, knowing they are not being quoted. This also helps journalists better understand the story.

This is bread and butter to Steph Spyro, deputy political editor and environment editor at The Daily Express, and the author of the LinkedIn newsletter Off The Record.

She explains that sometimes, it helps to go and get coffee with a newer or less experienced contacts to build trust first. But the general expectation is that a conversation is on the record unless otherwise stated, especially with more senior politicians.

However - as many of us have encountered - sometimes the rules change mid-interview. The source reveals information, only to caveat that it's off the record and they don't wish for it to be reported. What do you do?

"I don't stop the flow of the conversation," Spyro explains. "I make a note and I let the conversation flow."

She then circles back to it at the end of the conversation and ask for the reason they don't want it published. This approach maintains momentum, preserves relationships, and creates space for negotiation.

The reason for it being off the record determines the path forward. She broke these down into four main reasons: reputational, safety, personal, and legal.

Reputational risks

When sources cite reputational concerns, Spyro says this is a decision to take back to her editor. She treads carefully: "It's a test of what bridges you're willing to burn."

Spyro emphasises the value of the long-term view: building the trust of contacts and exploring alternative routes to the information.

Try this: Look for other ways to validate the information, such as colleagues or documents obtained through FOI requests. A last-ditch effort would be to anonymise the source.

Personal safety

Safety concerns represent the most serious category.

Spyro provides a compelling example from an interview with Chloe Cheung, who has a £100,000 reward on her head from the Hong Kong police.

"She said something to me that I felt put her more at risk," Spyro recounts. Despite having permission to publish, "We took the editorial decision not to include that because we felt it heightened her safety... You never want to do harm."

Do this: Journalists should go one step further and proactively think about their source's best interests.

Personal reasons

Personal matters are the most common reason for off-the-record requests. "It sometimes happens with case studies when it gets really personal and they start talking about a family life that they don't want printed," Spyro explains.

People have a right to privacy, she continues, so in these cases, journalists need to be adaptable. Even if that means valuable parts get dropped and the article comes out 'cleaner'.

Try this: For particularly sensitive or traumatic cases, journalists can offer interviewees a small amount of control and allow them to preview the part of the story in question.

The law

Legal concerns present clear boundaries. "Sometimes if they want to say something that just can't be repeated in print or broadcast just because there might be legal risks," Spyro notes. Examples might be non-disclosure agreements or employment contracts.

Try this: Verify the credibility of the legal claim with senior editors and take appropriate action.

We used Claude AI to help draft this article before it was edited by a human. This article was first published on 28 August 2025 and was republished on 14 November 2025