“On background” is little known outside of journalism circles. Typically, it’s a useful way of getting sources that wish to remain anonymous to agree to allow the information they provide to be published. In a sense it occupies the murky water between ‘on the record’ and ‘off the record’.
However, its usefulness in specific contexts – particularly within investigative journalism – has been co-opted by Silicon Valley press officers and public relations teams. This is because the anonymity that an ‘on background’ briefing necessarily demands is an useful strategy for disseminating information without any level of transparency or accountability.
This makes ‘on background’ an important idea for illustrating both the contempt that big tech has for the press and the public, and, more importantly, the way in which the way they do business depends on a level of secrecy and an avoidance of accountability. Indeed, this might be what happens when you try to build a communications strategy around an ethos of moving fast and breaking things. You need to be able to twist, turn, and dodge scrutiny, while also twisting and turning your operations and strategy in a way that can maximise growth.
What is “on background” and how does it compare to off the record?
It’s easy to confuse ‘on background’ with ‘off the record’. However, this short post by Chris Keller does a good job of explaining the guidelines from the Associated Press.
As mentioned above, the main thing you need to know about the difference between the two is that “off the record” implies that the information cannot be published, while “on background” means the information can be published if anonymity is granted.
The Associated Press guidelines that Keller links to suggest that the organization is wary of on background briefing. The rules it sets down for writers and editors, such as ensuring that information given on background isn’t opinion or speculation, and isn’t available elsewhere (ie. from an on the record source), are intended to mitigate the risks that such an approach to attribution and information gathering can pose.
However, such rules may make it harder for journalists and news organizations to get Silicon Valley to play ball. Indeed, Silicon Valley press and PR teams are well aware of this, and, moreover, aware of the fact that the information they have is in high demand. From internal gossip to significant commercial decisions, the fact that there is serious public and political interest in what’s actually happening inside these organizations means that they have the upper hand in ensuring that information is shared on their terms.
What are the consequences of “on background”?
The consequences of “on background” briefings in the context of Silicon Valley is that it can allow individuals and the organizations they represent to avoid accountability for the information that is shared.
In turn, this makes it harder for them to be scrutinized. When the means through which information is shared is secretive, it becomes much harder for journalists and others to ask probing questions and to gain a sense of how ideas or positions have emerged.
Julia Angwin, the Editor in Chief of The Markup, wrote about “the scourge of ‘on background’ in Silicon Valley” in a recent newsletter by the publication (published October 3rd).
In it, Angwin highlights Amazon’s response to a report by investigative journalism outlet reveal, which detailed rising injury rates in the company’s warehouses. This took the form of a statement of official-sounding invective that sought to undermine the work of Reveal. While this response in itself doesn’t present Amazon in the best light (although of course Amazon has a right to reply to any allegations put forward by Reveal) what’s notable here is that the press team who sent out the statement asked reporters to attribute it to “Amazon” rather than any specific individual.
The impact here is that it becomes very difficult for anyone else to properly interrogate what’s going on. If there is a robust defense against what Reveal alleges, then that should be provided with an individual inside Amazon who can explain any errors and provide further information as a correction.
“On background” as a marketing tool
In a very informative article discussing “on background,” Brian Merchant traces the origin of the approach back to Apple. He also suggests that the strategy wasn’t just about issues of accountability, but instead a branding or marketing tactic
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in the nineties, Merchant explains, he “restricted the flow of information from Apple” and “only select executives… were permitted to speak to select media outlets, and engineers and higher-level employees were forbidden from going on the record.”
This was particularly effective, Merchant continues, for flagship product launches such as the iPhone:
“It created such a booming demand for this scarce information that a cottage knowledge industry sprang up, with reporters and bloggers competing to break news about items like product update announcements and leaked supply chain specs.”
In a sense, then, this tactic created scarcity, and encouraged an appetite for information. From a marketing perspective, it also added to the mystique and aura of these products. Given the success of such an approach to briefing journalists, it’s not surprising that it caught on across the industry.
Keeping the press at arms length was good for business on multiple fronts.
Examples of when “on background” has been used by big tech
Merchant cites two examples of times he encountered “on background.” Both demonstrate the way it is used to shield Silicon Valley companies from scrutiny.
Tesla’s approach to the press
The first was in relation to Tesla’s ostensibly ‘semi autonomous’ self-driving software for its cars, which caused fatal accidents back in 2018. Merchant, aware that Tesla were using self-driving capabilities as a key element in its marketing pitch to customers, wrote a critical piece taking the industry as a whole to task in an article for Gizmodo.
Doing research for the piece, Merchant reached out to Tesla requesting a response from criticisms levelled at the company by a lecturer at University College London, Jack Stilgoe.
Tesla’s response, Merchant explains, was to speak, but only “on background.” He describes the conversation as “a targeted sales pitch—albeit one with strange tactics, as they spent a lot of time basically yelling at me—that was aimed at convincing me that Autopilot was safe.”
The effect of this was twofold. On the one hand Merchant was unable to quote a specific source at Tesla, but it also ensured that the Tesla representatives had greater liberty to provide a response on their terms. Without attribution, no one was responsible or accountable for what Tesla said.
Amazon
The second incident Merchant mentions related to an article he wrote on Amazon’s failure to deliver on their environmental efforts.
“The company ignored my request for a comment until the story ran, then announced two new clean energy projects and offered to speak, on background, about the development. To me, it seemed that they had used my request as a heads-up to announce something that would make my story appear off-base. Of course, I can neither confirm nor deny this, because Amazon only offered to speak on background—and I refused.”
How can we tackle the problems posed by “on background”?
Julia Angwin’s solution to “on background” is straightforward: you simply refuse to engage with companies on those terms. “We decided early on that we would not participate in “on background” conversations with company officials and spokespeople” she writes. “We tell every company that we contact for a comment that we need an on-the-record statement, and if they can’t provide one, we will not use any comment at all.”
This ultimately leads to greater transparencyn Angwin argues. “We [The Markup] believe that this policy can lead to better and more precise responses from spokespeople, when they realize that they will have to stand behind what they say.”
Merchant shares this view. Since his Amazon story, he has “decided that on all matters of importance, I am no longer going to listen to a public relations representative try to change my mind on background with unquotable statements attributable to no one.”
Moreover, he urges other journalists to do the same and push back against “these ossified norms.”
What if you’re not a journalist?
If you’re not a journalist this might all seem academic and irrelevant. But I think understanding this PR technique can guard us all from bullshit statements from big tech. More importantly, it demonstrates the contempt these companies have for the public. After more than a decade trying to pretend their our friends, it’s clear that they’re anything but.