Take the legally accurate point first: there is no concept of “off the record” in Turkish legislation. The term is not defined in Press Law No. 5187, in the Criminal Code or in any other instrument. That does not make it unimportant; it means its binding force comes from somewhere else.
Where the binding force comes from
| Source | Character | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| The promise given | A professional undertaking | Breach destroys the relationship of trust and the source network |
| Personality rights | Civil Code, Art. 24 | Disclosing the source’s identity can infringe personality rights |
| Liability in damages | Code of Obligations, Art. 58 | A person whose personality right is injured may claim non-pecuniary damages |
| Source protection | Law No. 5187, Art. 12 | Not to be compelled to disclose a source or to give evidence |
“Off the record” is therefore not a criminal matter but one of contract and trust. Breach produces consequences in private law and in professional standing rather than in criminal law.
Confusion over terminology
The same phrase is used in practice for different things, and most disagreements start there. Settle which of these you have agreed before the conversation.
| Term | Usual meaning | What may be published |
|---|---|---|
| On the record | Everything is quotable | The information plus the source’s name and title |
| Background | Attributable by description | The information plus a general description such as “an official” |
| Deep background | Use without attribution | The information, with no attribution to the source |
| Off the record | Not for publication | None — the information is for guidance only |
Obtaining the same information another way
Where information has been given to you off the record, verifying it through an independent source and then reporting it is settled practice. The story then rests not on the first source but on the second, and the promise has not been broken.
The legal dimension of recording
An off the record conversation is usually not recorded. If it is, Article 133 of the Criminal Code engages: under Article 133/2 a person who records with an audio recording device a non-public conversation in which they take part, without the consent of the other speakers, is punished with six months to two years’ imprisonment or a judicial fine.
Subsequent disclosure is graver: under Article 133/3 a person who unlawfully discloses data obtained by recording non-public conversations is punished with two to five years’ imprisonment and a judicial fine of up to four thousand days, and “where such disclosed data are published through the press and media, the same penalty shall be imposed”.
Source protection still applies
Even if you do not report the information, you cannot be compelled to disclose what was given to you. Article 12 of Law No. 5187: “The owner of a periodical, the responsible editor and the author of the work may not be compelled to disclose their news sources of any kind, including information and documents, or to give evidence on that matter.”
An institutional practice
- Confirm orally at the start of the conversation which rule applies.
- Record the agreement in your notebook or in the internal system.
- Define the scope of the promise — duration, medium, form of attribution.
- Where a story has several sources, record each one’s rule separately.
- Change a rule only with the source’s express agreement.
The legal basis of source protection is covered in the source guide and its limits in the source limits guide.