By: Russ
Chatham House Rubes
I keep attending media and communications policy gatherings at which the introductory speaker reminds everyone of the implication of �Chatham House Rules�. I offer the following observations about the Chatham House Rules:
* At these gatherings, everyone nods their head as if we all know what the rules are. I�m guilty of this. As a �blogger�, I had no idea what Chatham House Rules were, although I understood through context that they relate to non-attribution of people�s remarks to induce free discussion.
* Just so there is no confusion, here is the text of the Chatham House Rules �
“WHEN A MEETING, OR PART THEREOF, IS HELD UNDER THE CHATHAM HOUSE RULE, PARTICIPANTS ARE FREE TO USE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, BUT NEITHER THE IDENTITY NOR THE AFFILIATION OF THE SPEAKER(S), NOR THAT OF ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT, MAY BE REVEALED”.
Everyone is SO busted. It is Chatham House Rule not Rules!
* Here�s the deal, folks� Based on the 5-10 times I�ve seen the Rule invoked since we started OfcomWatch, it�s normally used in situations were: (i) the people involved (including me) aren�t really that important, and (ii) they don�t have anything particularly controversial to say that would make the Rule�s application meaningful. It�s laughable�people just seem to take pride in being considered important enough to attend an event covered by the Rule. Am I wrong?
The typical scenario: A poorly attended gathering–with no press attending–concerning some mundane policy matter. A mid-level manager from some obscure BBC division stands up and says: ‘Now, what I’m about to reveal is so mind-blowing and shocking that I want to remind everyone of the Chatham House Rule, okay?’ He, of course, then proceeds to read directly from portions of the BBC’s annual report. It’s even funnier when professors mention the Rule, and look over at me ask ‘you weren’t planning on blogging this, were you?’ Gee, professor, your Powerpoint on EC competition law is riveting stuff, I don’t know how I can resist…
* And does the Chatham House Rule meet its purpose of �encouraging openness and the sharing of information�. Absolutely. But typically this sharing only occurs among the select 10-30 invitees to the particular event. It creates or fosters a two-tier system of access to information: one for those �in the know�, and one for everyone else. I find it perverse that the Rule is often applied to discussions concerning media and communications policy, and even more so when public officials are present.
Comments to: blog@ofcomwatch.co.uk
Jun 20th 2007
I couldn’t agree more: firstly - “Rules” are always quoted, but Chatham House are very clear - there is only one rule. Secondly - What is it, I have been to so many meetings where it is mis-quoted as nothing leaves the room everything is confidential - this is wrong and of course useless and never happens anyway. Thirdly - necessity, often it is used to protect information that is readily available outside the room!
Dec 27th 2007
Chatham House Rule
The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:
“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed”.
The world-famous Chatham House Rule may be invoked at meetings to encourage openness and the sharing of information.
EXPLANATION of the Rule
The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. Meetings do not have to take place at Chatham House to be held under the Rule.
Meetings, events and discussions held at Chatham House are normally conducted ‘on the record’ with the Rule occasionally invoked at the speaker’s request. In cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, an event may be held ‘off the record’.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
Q. When was the Rule devised?
A. In 1927 and refined in 1992 and 2002.
Q. Should one refer to the Chatham House Rule or the Chatham House Rules?
A. There is only one Rule.
Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don’t have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.
Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House can take disciplinary action against one of its members who breaks the Rule. Not all organizations that use the Rule have sanctions. The Rule then depends for its success on being seen as morally binding.
Q. Is the Rule used for all meetings at Chatham House?
A. Not often for the larger meetings (so-called Members’ Events); more frequently for smaller ones, for example where work in progress is discussed or when subject matter is politically sensitive.
Q. Who uses the Rule these days?
A. It is widely used in the English-speaking world - by local government and commercial organizations as well as research organizations.
Source: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/