Off-the-record

I agree the idea of holding a public meeting off-the-record is completely bogus. Meghan O’Sullivan, former deputy national security advisor to President Bush, (and indeed the whole nation) should feel comfortable having civil adult conversations about Iraq in the public sphere. But I’m also certain the IDS would have granted her conditions were only a few unimportant differences in play. In which case, closing the speech seems like hollow victory on semantic grounds that shortchanged the public of an important (if partisan and altogether terribly wrong) side of the debate about Iraq. The Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations Feisal Istrabadi talked to an international relations political science class last year before his public speech, disclosing his personal opinions on the way the U.S. could help Iraq. His experience, combined with his candidness, provided for insights into Iraq provided that class with a unique view of Iraq.\nAt the outset of the speech, he said to everyone that the session was off-the-record. Were his opinions to be set out on-record, he said he would not deliver anything but canned rhetoric. Perhaps I was shirking my journalistic responsibility by not attempting to report on the class (while employed by the IDS), which any member of the public could have attended. Given what I learned that day, I do not see it this way. To me, the size or public nature of the crowd does not matter. If Ms. O’Sullivan had requested an off-the-record meeting with an IDS journalist or two (or three or 10), wouldn’t she be granted that? Even if the meeting was in a public place? Would her speech then be off-the-record if she requested it separately as each person entered the door? Surely IDS policy would be to err on the side of source confidentiality. Or what if President George W. Bush had requested this speech? Surely the IDS would agree to attend and not use the information garnered, as the alternative would be being barred by the Secret Service.\nThat said, keep fighting the good fight.