“But it’s Chatham House Rules!” complained the PR person upset at the coverage of their client’s event.
Declaring something is ‘Chatham House Rules’ seems to be a thing among Australian event organisers, who think it adds a patina of importance and intellectual heft to otherwise boring and inconsequential meetups.
In truth, the Chatham House Rule doesn’t do what many think it does. So let’s dispel some myths.
There’s only one Chatham House Rule
As the Chatham House website itself says “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 rule means that discussions can be divulged, but those participating can’t be identified.
I guess it could be argued there is a second rule, that event organisers (and even journalists) will usually get it wrong, particularly when they confuse meetings with being ‘confidential’ or ‘closed’.
The Rule means ‘confidential’
Usually, organisers citing ‘Chatham House Rules’ are looking to restrict reporting on the proceedings, when the rule’s intent is to encourage openness with participants speaking freely without the fear being identified.
This was particularly in the days when the Westminster conventions were strongly observed as it allowed senior public servants to speak their mind without the risk of their comments being seen as contrary to government policies.
A largely outdated concept
In today’s world where everyone has a recording device in the form of a smartphone, the rule is largedly outdated as anyone in the room could be recording.
There are some situations where the Chatham House Rule can apply but they are increasingly rare and it depends largely upon the trustworthiness of the attendees. The smaller and more focused the group, the more likely the rule will be observed.
It won’t enhance your event
While citing the rule might make the organisers and participants feel important, the effect of invoking it will probably discourage people attending.
Applying the Chatham House Rule will also render events un-newsworthy, discouraging journalists and destroying any chance of getting media coverage. If that’s an objective, then ditch any thought of citing this rule – or any other restrictions for that matter.
Be upfront
If you are going to insist on reporting restrictions such as the Chatham House Rule, ‘confidentiality’ or ‘closed to media’, state this on the invite or event page. Nothing irritates attendees more than showing up to be told this.
Even worse is trying to retrospectively apply these rules. Like ‘off the record’ or ‘on background’. If you did’t say what the conditions are before the statements are made then your rules don’t apply.
These rules are unenforceable
Ultimately, these rules are courtesies and aren’t enforceable. If someone breaches Chatham House, off-the-record, or other conditions, there is little you can do. Quite honestly, if you’re scared about what people are going to report then you should rethink the event.
The lesson for event organisers is ditch the Chatham House fixation. It doesn’t make you look smarter and it doesn’t enhance the event.
Embrace some open discussion and almost certainly your event will go better – and you won’t look like a goose.
For the PR complaining about ‘Chatham House Rules’, they did manage to get the coverage changed by bullying the publisher and editor of the outlet, but they managed to destroy any relationship with the journalist and her newsroom. So they won the battle but hopelessly lost the longer game.
Leave a Reply