How to report "the story" when there is no story

I've been silent for a while on the whole Eason Jordan blogswarm (I almost typed "kerfuffle" which seems to be the blogosphere word of the week.) I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, but I did have some tangentially related thoughts to add into the mix. They concern the idea or "off the record" or "not for attribution." I'm having some trouble understanding how a panel discussion held before a large crowd at a major world forum can be described as "off the record". Not just that it's effectively not really possible with that many reporters and bloggers in the room. I'm wondering what is really the purpose of such an exercise. Why bother really? It can't be that the participants wanted to keep their views a secret. You don't discuss genuine secrets from a stage in front of a crowd. So why bother?

I can only think of one reason. There is (supposedly) an ethical requirement for journalists that requires some sort of corroboration of of a story. To spread stories without corroborating evidence is rumor mongering, something good journalists ought not do. Ideally a conversation "off the record" allows a reporter to focus his or her efforts to get the real evidence, like a tip to police. The tip is not the story, but rather a lead to a story. I wonder if the phrase "off the record" is coming to mean, "I'm reporting what I cannot corroborate." It's a way of dressing up rumors. Eason Jordan has the resources to investigate what he believes occurred, and get to real story. Apparently he didn't find much. He can't spread the story through CNN because he can't back it up even to their standards, so he turns to the "back channel"; repeated statements to large groups of people who are sure to spread the story around.

Even if Jordan's remarks had not been reported in a blog, everyone in the news business would have heard about them within days, and everyone would have known that Jordan was the source. The story, was very effectively "published", without the application of normal journalistic restraints. "Off the record" is now a magic phrase that can set a reporter free of those irritating journalistic principles. No one in their right mind says things in a panel discussion at Davos that he doesn't want widely known (and attributed to him). You use a forum like this to air thoughts you'd like to get out but cannot through any legitimate means. Its a sneak.

So here's how to interpret what you hear. If an important person whispers something to you over lunch "off the record", its probably some valuable tip you should look into. If an important person tells you something "off the record" from a microphone in front of a large crowd and a tv camera, it's a bunch of nonsense. Which begs the question, why attend such a farce? If its worth hearing, they would be willing to say it on the record, or be keeping it close to the vest. Opinions broadcast to the world "off the record" are worth about as much as those secret communiques from "Nigerian officials" that are emailed to thousands.