Banducci has resigned after an ‘on the record’ bungle. But what does the phrase really mean?

Brad Banducci has this morning stepped down as Woolworths CEO following a heated exchange with an ABC journalist who refused to exclude comments that Banducci made on the record in an investigation into the supermarket giant’s pricing practices.

The phrase “off/on the record” is such a well-known piece of journalism jargon that most punters (or dear readers, in your case) are aware of it. 

At the risk of navel-gazing, many a journalist will have an anecdote from being at a dinner party, divulging what they do for a living, and being playfully asked to not report on the scandalous hijinks of Karen from accounts at Anonymous Megacorp Inc. 

Indeed, ABC’s Four Corners this week highlighted the chasm between how the general public understands “the record” to work, and how the media does. 

In an interview with ABC journalist Angus Grigg, the then Woolworths CEO Banducci referred to former ACCC chair Rod Sims as “retired”, an apparent shot at Sims’ qualifications to remark on Woolworths’ actions concerning competition law. Banducci’s immediate regret turned to anger after his subsequent request to have the remark edited out was denied by a resolute Grigg, who insisted that it was “on the record”. 

“You said it, let’s just move on,” said Grigg. Banducci protested about good faith and walked out on the interview, before being persuaded to return by Woolworths’ PR staff. 

Banducci retired on Wednesday morning, just two days after the interview aired. The announcement came that Banducci would leave the company in September, to be replaced by WooliesX digital head Amanda Bardwell, as the supermarket giant announced its latest profit results, 2.5% rise in half-year profit to $929 million (excluding one-off writedowns in the value of its New Zealand, alcohol and hotels operations).

The idea of what “on the record” means is nebulous, and in many instances can mean different things to different journalists. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance is the peak union body for journalists, and its code of ethics states that journalists should “aim to attribute information to its source”. 

“Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source,” the code states. “Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.”

Associate Professor Johan Lidberg, the head of journalism at Monash University’s school of media, film and journalism, says the idea of what the record is means different things to different people because “there are no hard and fast rules”. 

Lidberg told Crikey that as a “default point”, reporters should aim for everything to be on the record, and where a source requests otherwise, it should be agreed to in advance and not without consideration of the source’s motives. 

Lidberg said Banducci’s behaviour in the Four Corners interview was “amateurish and unprofessional”.

“[Angus Grigg] was absolutely right — it’s an on-the-record, recorded interview,” he said. “The CEO has no right or scope to ask for things to be taken out.” 

The question of what the record is, and when journalists can go off the record, is also raised often in the political sphere, with the practice of “backgrounding”. 

Sources giving information “on background”, while not limited to politics, is common with media advisers who aren’t necessarily authorised to act as spokespeople on an issue but who are tasked with expediently getting stories into the public record, according to Alexandra Wake, associate professor at RMIT’s school of media and communication. 

Wake said these rules of engagement are well-known in the political world. 

“Working in the political sphere, you have to take background information from a range of politicians, advisors and departmental officials, and they’ll never put their name to anything. Everyone in that realm knows that,” Wake told Crikey.

This issue came to the fore in 2007 when former treasurer Peter Costello accused three journalists of breaching an understanding that comments made at a 2005 dinner were off the record. 

Tony Wright, Michael Brissenden and Paul Daley were allegedly told over dinner that Costello threatened to “destroy” then prime minister John Howard’s leadership ahead of the 2007 election to launch his own leadership challenge. 

Retroactively, Wright told ABC Radio two and a half years later that he regretted not writing the story at the time, but that eventually publishing was “simply putting on the record what [Costello] says he never said”. 

Wake says the rules of engagement change in scenarios such as these, and that in her view, if a source were to lie about an off-record conversation, “all bets are off”. 

“If someone goes out and lies about [the contents of an off-record conversation] later, I think that does change the rules of engagement,” she said. 

Wake said the Four Corners episode demonstrated an increasing “lack of understanding by PR people, media people and marketing people of the role and value and importance of journalism.” 

“The CEO clearly needed better media preparation. That was a failure of his PR team, rather than the journalist. 

“[This incident is] one good reason why PR people should learn about journalism. Just because you said something you don’t like, doesn’t mean you get to take it back.”

What are your thoughts on Banducci’s resignation? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.