But among those who have long dealt with the news media, like politicians and their charges, there is occasionally a sort of shorthand for these questions. Below, you’ll find a brief primer on the kinds of conversations journalists have with sources — and the kinds of conversations we have about those conversations.

(One caveat, which cannot be repeated enough: There is no universally agreed-upon meaning for many of these terms — and The Times has no precise descriptions in its own internal guidelines — making it difficult to sketch out even working definitions. Let’s try anyway.)

On the record: This is the easy one — and a journalist’s strong preference at all times. Speakers can be named speaking the words they spoke. Enjoy responsibly.

If no rules are set in advance, the assumption is that everything is on the record: comments, eye-rolls, life in all its majesty. Sometimes, after an especially punchy flourish, a hammy politician might say something like, “And you can quote me on that!” This is generally not in doubt, but it’s always fun to hear anyway.

Off the record: Ideally, terms are established at the start. And since nothing from the conversation can be used for publication, journalists are, ideally, cleareyed about the consequences of this arrangement, if they agree to it at all: Sources will have their own agendas, trying to shape future coverage to their liking.

Still, there can be benefits for a reporter, including the chance to see newsmakers in an unguarded setting. Do they know what they’re talking about? Do they seem overconfident? The chat is off the record, but the impressions last.

Often, even the existence of the conversation is to remain private. But sometimes, as with Mr. Trump’s tweet about The Times, the other side starts talking.