Let’s review: a journalist’s meeting with his or her source can be classified according to three types:

• Interview: When the journalist can publish the entire record of the conversation 
• “Background”: The source conveys information and is not opposed to the journalist using that information in an article, but on one condition — that the source’s name is not revealed.
• “Off the record”: The source lets the journalist know in advance that the information she or he is about to give cannot be published, though the journalist can take the information into consideration when writing his or her story.

These three types can intersect: for example, the first part of the meeting can be an interview; the second, information for publication, but without naming the source; and third, information on the condition that it not be published.

Now to the questions. If a person having information is prepared to share it with you, is it right to turn down the meeting since you don’t like that person? I think, it’s wrong — a politician might be able to act like that, but not a journalist. 

Should a source’s request for the information being “background” or “off the record” be respected? I believe, yes, because by not respecting the agreement and acquiring a “big mouth” reputation, you might lose the confidence of not only that source, but also other possible sources, which will have a negative effect on your news stories. 

There’s also another very important delicate issue here: knowing about your big mouth, the source might intentionally throw some information at the sector that’s convenient for him or her and not bear any responsibility for it. 

Thus, by having a big mouth, you’re acting not only unprofessionally, but also like a naive person who can be easily manipulated.

And finally, is it worth it whether in open or closed meetings to ask your source, “Why are you such a bad person?”, “When are you going to commit suicide?”, and so on. Probably not, because those are not journalistic questions; that is, they are not aimed at acquiring and disseminating information. 

Now let’s move from the theoretical to the practical. Armenia’s current president, as well as former president Robert Kocharian, regularly meets with heads of news outlets, under the condition that they not publish the contents of the meeting.

In the 90s, from what I recall, only Vazgen Sargsyan felt the need for such conversations. (Such conversations are common practice in the world.)

I was invited and participated in most of these closed-door meetings with Armenian presidents, as well as foreign ministers Vartan Oskanian and Edward Nalbandian. Why are the heads of some news outlets chosen over others is a question I don’t have the authority to answer, nor does it particularly interest me. 

In any case, my extensive experience of such meetings has shown that the issue is not mutual warm and affectionate feelings, because participating in those meetings were also strong pro-opposition editors, who definitely didn’t change their political beliefs after seeing high-ranking officials.

The content of all those meetings one way or another quite quickly made its way into news media reports — and this last meeting with the president is no exception. Someone more or less being related to the journalism community in a small country can easily identify the naive person with the big mouth who is easily manipulated. 

That too, after all, is not my problem. It’s simply that there are journalists who respect the aforementioned principles of the profession, and there are those who don’t.

Aram Abrahamyan

The views expressed in the column are those of the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Media.am.