At media training sessions and roundtable discussions, one of the most valuable aspects is the freedom participants feel to exchange ideas openly. These conversations spark fresh thinking and help people see issues from new perspectives.
Often, that sense of safety comes from operating under the Chatham House Rule. It’s meant to create space for honest dialogue — but as many professionals have discovered, it’s also one of the most misunderstood concepts in modern business communication.
One Rule, Not “Rules”
People frequently refer to “Chatham House Rules,” as though there’s a whole set of them. In fact, there’s only one — and it’s surprisingly short. Here’s what Chatham House 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.
That’s it. One sentence.
This means anyone who attends such a meeting is entirely free to share what was said — provided they don’t identify who said it. In journalistic terms, that’s easy enough to navigate: a quick “sources close to the company said…” and the Chatham House Rule is technically upheld.
Where It Goes Wrong
The problem is that many professionals assume the phrase means total confidentiality — that nothing said under the Rule can leave the room. It’s a common misunderstanding, even at senior levels. One senior banker once argued fiercely online that the Rule guaranteed complete secrecy and that any breach would have consequences.
That’s simply not what the Rule says. It was never designed as a confidentiality agreement, and it’s not legally binding. It’s an understanding — and one that depends on everyone in the room knowing what they’ve actually agreed to.
Off the Record? Be Careful There Too
Chatham House itself advises that if something truly must remain private, it should be kept “off the record.” Even that, however, can be risky. Journalists and other media professionals sometimes interpret “off the record” differently — often as “unattributable” rather than “secret.”
The Case for Simplicity
So what’s the safest approach? Simplicity. If you genuinely need something to remain confidential, say so — directly and clearly. “Confidential” is unambiguous. Everyone knows what it means.
By contrast, saying “Chatham House Rules” (plural) can signal uncertainty. It’s often used to sound authoritative or sophisticated, but it can actually blur the boundaries of what’s permitted. When it comes to professional communication, clarity beats elegance every time.
The Takeaway
In media interactions, roundtables, or any kind of professional exchange, precision in language matters. It protects reputations, ensures trust, and avoids misunderstanding.
So next time you’re setting the ground rules for a sensitive discussion, skip the fancy phrasing. Just say “confidential” — and mean it.
And you can tell anyone you like that this came from Clapperton Media Training.