“Don’t quote me on this . . . “
I was startled to read this quote in The Athletic (part of the New York Times) from a federal judge overseeing an antitrust case regarding the NCAA and college sports conferences:
[U.S. District Court Judge Claudia] Wilken raised several questions related to the objections, but she also expressed optimism for eventual approval if those questions can be addressed.
“Basically, I think it is a good settlement — don’t quote me,” said Wilken. “I think it is worth pursuing and I think some of these things could be fixed if people tried to fix them, and that it would be worth their while to try to fix them.”
So it’s basically a quote that says “Don’t quote me.”
That’s unusual but not unheard of. Here’s LA Lakers coach J.J. Reddick on the mix of scoring plays in NBA basketball:
I checked this last year so don’t quote me on this, but what has increased along with 3-point volume is points in the paint.
And gymnast Simone Biles in Marie Claire (why is it always sports content?):
“I feel like we have a lot of weight on our shoulders to go out there and prove that we’re better athletes,” Biles said on Sunday (via Le Monde). “We’re more mature, we’re smarter, we’re more consistent—but don’t quote me on that . . .”
A few observations . . .
On the record is on the record. Unless you say “this is off the record” and get agreement from a reporter, it’s on the record. If it’s a court proceeding, of course it’s on the record. Saying “don’t quote me” makes no difference.
Federal judges, basketball coaches, and famous gymnasts who say this are making themselves look dopey.
Are reporters reporting that somebody said “don’t quote me” followed by whatever they said aware how weird that looks?
If “don’t quote me” means, colloquially, “I have an opinion but it’s not a dependable fact,” why are these prominent people sharing their uninformed opinions in on-the-record settings? And why are journalists quoting those uninformed unverified opinions?
No, I’m not seriously exercised about this. I just find it ever-so-slightly hilarious.
And yes, you can quote me on that.
Thanks for posting this as a public service. I think that most people’s knowledge of media relations, PR and journalism – including how and why a particular story lands “in the paper” – are informed by movies and TV (e.g., Deep Throat, “stop the presses!” and “don’t quote me” among them. Although this thought is scary when it extends to CEOs, business execs and others who have a professional stake and should know better. (And probably not for lack of media training…)
As a longtime former newsman, I think this is kind of a d*ck move by reporters that does some needless damage to a craft that faces a growing public esteem crisis.
Yes, it is absolutely correct that by longstanding norms and understandings of professional journalism, you can’t, in the middle of an on-the-record conversation with a reporter, unilaterally declare something is off the record or can’t be quoted. You and the reporter need to come to an expressed, mutual agreement that you’re now going off the record (and when you’re back on) … or an up-front agreement that the interview is “off” subject to the interviewee agreeing explicitly to put parts of it “on.”
In the examples above, I’d have recommended just using the quote while omitting the “don’t quote me” part of it. If the speaker later complained, I’d explain the ground rules of “off the record” as Josh accurately described them above and why the quote was governed by on-the-record rules.
Exceptions exist, of course. But ostentatiously quoting the words “don’t quote me” in the specific examples above smacks IMO of “gotcha” and “I’m going to call readers’ attention to my teaching you a lesson, because I can”–neither of which helps public respect for and faith in journalists and journalism.
Situations for applying pedantic deposition rules to conducting journalism exist, absolutely, but especially in the current atmosphere, none of these three examples IMO met that standard. Hardly the worst things journalists have ever done, but not helpful to the cause.