When you exchange mail with journalists (yeah, yeah, have the argument about whether Gizmodo staff are journalists elsewhere) it's fairly common for them to clarify when they will not plan to directly quote a reply you send to them in a story.
But recordings of those calls are not always legal, and when they are legal to create, they are not always legal to use in court. There are much stricter laws around phone recordings than emails (because laws take half a century to change, and email's only been in wide use for 25)
My state follows the federal rule that EITHER party to a telephone conversation may record the entire conversation. What is admissible in court as evidence may not be as broad (in a particular case) as what evidence can be gathered by either party, but as I just mentioned in a comment I posted elsewhere in this thread, a conversation like that between Lam and Jobs can blow up in Lam's face even if the only evidence offered is courtroom testimony by Jobs regarding what Lam spoke, from Jobs's recollection of the conversation.
