Maybe it wasn't really meant to be on the record?

There seems to be some confusion as to whether the Davos panel at which Eason Jordan made his controversial remarks was or wasn't on the record.  The WEF is now saying it wasn't, or not completely, until they make a policy decision about it. However many of us at Davos believed the session was on the record because it was conducted in a room called Sanada 1&2. Here are the official guidelines issued to media and potential bloggers before Davos began:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
‘On and Off the Record’ Policy for AM 2005

All plenary sessions are fully ‘on’ the record.

All sessions that are broadcast or webcast are ‘on the record’  (for 2005 that means all sessions in the Congress Hall or Sanada 1 and 2)

Every other session is only ‘on the record’ in terms of content.  That is to say what was said can be reported – but it must not be attributed to any individual.  However, should the journalist get the agreement of any participant to be quoted that is of course acceptable.

Naturally, all private meetings are off the record.

This policy is clear and simple and allows greater transparency.  It can also be very simply and effectively enforced.  Any transgression will lead to immediate withdrawal of badge and any future access to World Economic Forum events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon closer reading, it seems one could interpret that parenthetical "(for 2005 that means all sessions in the Congress Hall or Sanada 1 and 2)" in a couple of different ways...

UPDATE: the WEF's Mark Adams responded to my query about this as follows:

my understanding was that since this session was not webcast or broadcast it was 'off the record'

Certainly, no announcement was made at the begining of the session - as far as I remember - that it would  be on the record.

In any case - a session summary is available on our website and we will not be trying to get a transcript of the session.

It's unclear what this means as far as releasing the tape is concerned, as he didn't address that part of my query in his reply. As for the session summary on the WEF website, it doesn't even mention the controversial remarks or anything related to them.

Comments

[Hektor]

If the whole matter of releasibility hinges on the "Chatham House Rule" (sounds like the standard nonattribution caveat to me), then the solution is simple. If the MSM was taping/recording the proceedings and WEF permits their release, then they WEF has to release everything discussed during the panel meeting. You can't cherry-pick what is covered by nonattribution during a public address, and what isn't. That is to say, it's either all covered by nonattribution, or none of it's covered.

Hektor

[ZF]

Bloggers are in the process of driving a coach and horses through this 'for attribution/nonattribution' nonsense anyway. Mess them around and they will just bring their own recording equipment. Unobtrusive solid state recorders excellent for this purpose cost almost nothing already.

[Dusty]

I am not sure what Mr. Adams means by broadcast. Going thru the website, I did see CNN "broadcast" the session "CNN Connects: Freedom to Choose" which took place on 28 Jan, but I can't find what others might have been broadcast, unless the webcasts are also considered broadcast.

Is there a way to check broadcast/webcast with the list of DVDs which are available for purchase? I found several DVDs will be available which were not on the Webcast list.

And, why would one videotape a session which is off the record?

Also, I'd be curious if the participants which were quoted in the session summary you link to gave their prior approval for attribution.

Lastly, it seems the folks at the official weblog didn't get the message on the "on the record", "off the record" session requirements.

[Blanknoone]

The notion that it is 'off the record' because it wasn't broadcast or webcast is bogus.

The rules make it clear that speakers expectations of on or off the record was based on room assignment...and that room was on an on the record room. And it is the speakers expectations that matter. There is no way panelists could know whether or not that video camera was or was not actaully broadcasting. They did know what room they were in. And if they read the rules, they would know that was an on the record room.

Furthermore, the idea that 'no one announced it was on the record' is childish. It was in a room that was supposed to be on the record...if it was off the record, that is what would have to be announced not the other way around.

[Alec Rawls]

What the WEF statement on Sanda 1 and 2 seems to imply is that the event was SUPPOSED to be webcast or broadcast (either live or tape delay). Adams is now using the fact that he is refusing to broadcast the event (release the tape) as grounds for claiming that the event was not on the record (the opposite of what everyone was told) and witholding the broadcast. Circular reasoning, of course, is invalid. Adams doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[p.lukasiak]

As for the session summary on the WEF website, it doesn't even mention the controversial remarks or anything related to them.

perhaps that is because the "controversial remarks" were immediately disavoweled upon being challenged, i.e. that there was a misunderstanding that was cleared up, and thus there was no need to mention the (reportedly) "controversial remarks"?