Introduction

Our mission is to provide a platform for truthful, unbiased and balanced independent journalism, adhering to high editorial standards.

We are independent of government, commercial, and third-party control or influence.

We guarantee artistic freedom within the accepted norms of taste and decency, the boundaries of our published editorial guidelines, and our signed terms and conditions.

We aim to provide a platform for impartial news and information to help our users to understand and engage with the world around them.

We aspire to showcase the most creative and trustworthy news and information, free from bias, discrimination and exploitation.

We want our audience to trust our content, knowing that our contributors conform to the highest possible standards. 

We will monitor and review our content to ensure the observance of our guidelines, to safeguard our editorial integrity, and to maintain the high quality of our output.

Content that does not conform to the guidelines, or is deemed unjustifiably offensive, will be removed. Likewise, all libelous and defamatory material, including material that amounts to gross intrusion of privacy, will be removed.

It is the responsibility of the contributor to ensure that the stories they upload do not contain prohibited and illegal content.

We operate in the public interest – reporting stories of significance to our audiences and holding power to account.

We seek to establish the truth and use the highest reporting standards to provide coverage that is fair and accurate.

We are impartial, seeking to reflect the views and experiences of our audiences, so that our output as a whole includes a breadth and diversity of opinion and no significant strand of thought is under-represented or omitted.

We are independent of outside interests and arrangements that could compromise our editorial integrity. Our editorial standards do not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles. 

Free speech enables the exchange of information and ideas without state interference. It helps to inform public debate – encouraging us to be curious, engaged and critical. However, freedom of expression is not an absolute right – it carries duties and responsibilities and is also subject to legal restrictions and limits.

In exercising freedom of expression, we must offer appropriate protection to vulnerable groups and avoid causing unjustifiable offense. We must also respect people’s privacy – only putting private information into the public domain where the public interest outweighs an individual’s legitimate expectation of privacy.

The public interest is also served in exposing or detecting crime or significantly anti-social behavior and by exposing corruption, injustice, significant incompetence or negligence.

These Editorial Guidelines apply to all published content and to all users submitting content, regardless of wherever in the world the content is created. The guidelines represent the gold standard for everyone making and submitting content. They are intended to help anyone producing content to deal with difficult editorial issues.

The Guidelines set out our ethical obligations, which often go further than the law.

Knowledge of and adherence to the Guidelines is an essential professional skill and everyone who makes content for this platform is contractually required to familiarize themselves with them and abide by them.

We are committed to accuracy in all our published content. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation and the trust of platform audiences.

Our content must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, and corroborated.

We should be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.

We must not knowingly and materially mislead our audiences. We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences’ trust in our content.

We pledge to acknowledge serious factual errors and correct them quickly, clearly and appropriately, or remove such content immediately.

Accuracy

Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. Relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should be weighed to get at the truth. Where appropriate, and wherever possible, we should:

1. gather material using first-hand sources

2. check facts and statistics, identifying important caveats and limitations

3. validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material

4. corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors

5. weigh, interpret and contextualise claims, including statistical claims

We should try to witness events and gather information first-hand. Where this is not possible, we should talk to first-hand sources and, where practicable, corroborate their evidence.

We should be reluctant to rely on a single source. If we do rely on a single source, it should be credible and named; an on-the-record source is always preferable.

We must check and verify information, facts and documents, where required to achieve due accuracy. If we have been unable to verify material we should usually say so and attribute the information.

We should not assume that the material is accurate and, depending on how we plan to use it, should take reasonable steps to seek verification. We must take care over how we use any material that may have been supplied by a member of a lobby group or anyone with a vested interest in the story, rather than a disinterested bystander.

Care needs to be taken to distinguish fact from rumour, particularly – but by no means exclusively – on social media where misinformation may be deliberate and where error or rumour can spread around the world in minutes, while corrections find it harder to gain traction.

Additional scrutiny may be necessary if material from a social media site or other internet source is being used to corroborate a fact. Material that we did not gather ourselves should be attributed.

Material supplied by third parties, including news providers, needs to be treated with appropriate caution, taking account of the reputation of the source.

We should only use other material supplied by third parties if it is credible and reliable.

We should normally identify sources of information and significant contributors and provide their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status.

When quoting an anonymous source, especially a source making serious allegations, we must take all appropriate steps to protect their identity. However, we should give the audience what information we can about them and in a way that does not materially mislead about the source’s status.

We expect published content to be contemporaneous. Any significant gap in time between content creation and publication must be clearly labelled.

Impartiality

We are committed to achieving due impartiality in all of our content. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences. The term ‘due’ means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Due impartiality usually involves more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

It does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law.

We do not tolerate so called conspiracy theories, which by their nature, lack evidential proof, nor do we accept any medical or scientific theories or conspiracies that do have a foundation in scientific fact.

All material deemed to be bullying, shaming or hateful will be removed and result in the user being barred from the site.

In applying due impartiality to a subject, we give due weight to events, opinion and the main strands of argument. We may produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. 

We must always scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account with consistency and due impartiality.

Where our content highlights issues on which others campaign, we must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy. But this should not prevent us highlighting issues and offering our audiences choices about how to confront them.

Across our content as a whole, we must be inclusive, reflecting a breadth and diversity of opinion.

Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions. For example, minority views should not necessarily be given similar prominence or weight to those with more support or to the prevailing consensus. 

There may be occasions when the omission of views or other material could jeopardise impartiality. There is no view on any subject which must be excluded as a matter of principle, but we should make reasoned decisions, applying consistent editorial judgement, about whether to include or omit perspectives.

We must apply due impartiality to all our subject matter. However, there are particular requirements for ‘controversial subjects’.

Controversial Subjects

A ‘controversial subject’ may be a matter of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics or any other matter.

In determining whether subjects are controversial, we should take account of:

1. the level of public and political contention and debate

2. how topical the subject is

3. sensitivity in terms of relevant audiences’ beliefs and culture

4. whether the subject is a matter of intense debate or importance in a particular nation, region, community or discrete area likely to comprise at least a significant part of the audience

5. a reasonable view on whether the subject is serious

6. the distinction between matters grounded in fact and those which are a matter of opinion.

When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.

News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to impartiality.

We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.

We should ensure that appropriate scrutiny is applied to those who are in government, or otherwise hold power and responsibility, but also, as appropriate, to those who oppose or seek to influence them, such as campaigners, lobbyists, opposition parties and others; this may include scrutiny of views and arguments expressed on our output by the audience. 

Harm and Offense

We aim to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human experience and the realities of the natural world.

In doing so, we balance our right to publish innovative and challenging content, whilst recognising our responsibility to protect the vulnerable, especially young people, and to avoid unjustifiable offence.

We must ensure our audiences have clear information on which to judge whether content is suitable for themselves or their children.

When our content includes challenging material that risks offending some of our audience we must be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose taking account of generally accepted standards, and ensure it is justified by the context.

Such challenging material includes strong language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, and discriminatory treatment or language. 

The editorial bar for uploading any such content is extremely high. The editorial context and justification must be apparent, and a clear written warning given before such material can be accessed.

Strong language is most likely to cause offense when it is used gratuitously and without editorial purpose.

Our content must not contain:

1. sexual swearwords

2. terms of racist or ethnic abuse

3. terms of sexual and sexist abuse or abuse referring to sexuality or gender identity

4. pejorative terms relating to illness or disabilities

5. casual or derogatory use of holy names or religious words and especially in combination with other strong language

Audiences, particularly children, can be frightened or distressed by the portrayal of violence. Consideration should be given to the editorial justification for any depiction of violence, and violent content should normally be clearly signposted.

When real-life violence, or its aftermath, is shown, we need to strike a balance between the demands of accuracy and the dangers of causing unjustified distress.

Violence that is true to life and may also reflect personal experience, for example:

1. domestic violence, pub brawls, football hooliganism, road rage, and mugging

2. violence in places normally regarded as safe, such as the family home and hospitals

3. unusual or sadistic methods of inflicting pain, injury or death

4. incidents where women, children and the vulnerable are the victims

5. sexual violence

6. verbal aggression and tone, particularly when it includes the use of the strongest language and discriminatory or sexually offensive terms

7. suicide, attempted suicide or self-harm

8. where the reactions of others to the violence is shown, especially the reactions of children

We do not show nudity unless there is strong editorial justification for doing so. Nudity, whether actual or suggested, has the potential to offend.

The portrayal of sex, or the exploration of sexual issues, must have strong editorial  justification and treated with appropriate sensitivity.

There is NO justification for the depiction or discussion of sex involving minors. Such references and depictions are strictly prohibited and illegal. Any infringement or attempted infringement of this prohibition will be reported immediately to the required law enforcement authorities and result in a permanent ban for the user and prosecution.

We must ensure that material which contains abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals, groups, religions or communities, is not included in our output.

Hate speech includes all forms of expression that spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or sexual orientation.

We aim to reflect diverse communities in our services.

Methods of suicide and self-harm must not be included in output except where they are editorially justified and are also justified by the context. We should not include explicit details that would allow a method of suicide to be imitated.

We should consider whether to provide a link to support services when our posts deal with such issues.

Care is also required when portraying mental illnesses that are potentially imitable, including conditions such as anorexia or bulimia. We should be aware that the vulnerable, especially the young, may imitate or emulate behaviour and techniques depicted.

Careful judgements are required about content which might lead to dangerous imitation, particularly when they include the use of domestic objects (such as knives, hammers, acid and scissors) in violent acts.

Religion

Any content dealing with matters of religion and likely to cause offence to those with religious views and beliefs must be editorially justified as judged against audience expectations and generally accepted standards.

Religious beliefs are central to many people’s lives and arouse strong views and emotions. We should take care to avoid unjustified offence. Blasphemy laws around the world can be very different.

We must be aware of the religious sensitivity of references to, or uses of, names, images, deities, rituals, scriptures and language at the heart of the different faiths and ensure that any uses of, or verbal or visual references to, them are editorially justified within generally accepted standards. Examples include the Crucifixion, Holy Communion, the Qur’an, the Jewish Sabbath and similar.

Many Muslims regard any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as highly offensive.

We must consider the religious sensitivity surrounding the observance of holy days and the principal festivals of the great world faiths to avoid unnecessary offence from material that might be more acceptable at other times. 

We must act responsibly when including material looking at any aspect of exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination or any related practices and treat any claims that are made with due scepticism. 

Demonstrations of, or claims about, exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination or any related practices in factual programmes must be treated with objectivity appropriate to the output. In all our output, such demonstrations must not contain advice about health, finance, employment or relationships which encourages people to make life-changing decisions. 

To minimize the risk to viewers who have photo-sensitive epilepsy, we should avoid continuous flashing lights in our video content.

Fairness

We strive to be fair to all – fair to our audiences, fair to our contributors and potential contributors, fair to sources and fair to those our output is about.

Our content should be based on respect, openness and straight dealing.

We will be open, honest, straightforward and fair in our dealings with sources, contributors, potential contributors and audiences unless there is a clear public interest in doing otherwise, or we need to consider issues such as legal matters, safety, or confidentiality.

We should normally seek the informed consent of our contributors. Individuals and organisations should be appropriately informed about the planned nature and context of their contributions before they participate unless there is an editorial justification for proceeding without their consent.

When our output contains allegations of wrongdoing, iniquity or incompetence or lays out a strong and damaging critique of an identifiable individual or organisation, those criticised should normally have a right of reply, unless there is an editorial justification to proceed without it.

We owe due care to our contributors or potential contributors, as well as to our sources, who may be caused harm or distress as a result of their contribution.

Due care is the level of care that is appropriate to the individual and particular circumstances. We must judge this taking into account the editorial content, the nature and degree of the individual’s involvement and their public position, along with other relevant factors such as safety risks or whether the individual is vulnerable.

We should treat our contributors honestly and with respect. Our commitment to fairness is normally achieved by ensuring that people provide ‘informed consent’ before they participate. ‘Informed consent’ means that contributors should be in possession of the knowledge that is necessary for a reasoned decision to take part. Sometimes, in the public interest, it may be appropriate to withhold certain information.

Before an individual participates (with the exception of a minor contribution such as a vox pop or where the subject matter is trivial), we should normally at an appropriate stage tell contributors:

• the nature of the content, ie what it is about and its purpose

• why they are being asked to contribute, where it will first appear and when, if known

• the nature of their involvement, for example, whether their contribution will be edited.

• that there is no guarantee that it will be used

• the areas of questioning and, where relevant, the nature of other likely contributions

• that their contribution may also be available indefinitely and globally.

We should make clear that we expect contributors to be honest, straightforward and truthful.

We should not make any commitment to a contributor that we cannot keep.

People recorded committing or admitting to an offence or anti-social behaviour have a reduced legitimate expectation of privacy, so will not normally be asked for consent. Nor should we conceal their identity, unless it is editorially justified or legally necessary to do so.

There may be occasions when people are discussed, referred to or appear in material without their knowledge or consent. They may be public figures or private individuals and the material may include photographs, video and correspondence in which they feature. We should be fair and accurate in our portrayal of these people and respect their legitimate expectations of privacy.

We obtain informed consent from our contributors in a variety of ways depending on the circumstances of their contribution. Wherever practicable we should obtain consent in a form capable of proof which may include a consent form, an email exchange, a recording of the contributor’s confirmation that they understand the nature of the output and are content to take part, or a contemporaneous note of the consent conversations.

In many cases contributors will give their consent by simply agreeing to be recorded. For example, this will usually apply to those who are interviewed at short notice, including people in the news and people who take part in vox pops.

We should make checks to establish the credentials of our contributors and to avoid being hoaxed.

We must treat our contributors and potential contributors with respect. We must not unduly intimidate, humiliate or behave aggressively towards contributors, either to obtain their consent or during their participation in our output.

We must ensure when we promise anonymity that we are in a position to honour it, taking account of the implications of any possible court order demanding the disclosure of our extra material that was not uploaded.

When anonymity is essential, no document, computer file, or other record should identify a contributor or source. This includes notebooks, administrative paperwork, electronic devices, as well as video and audio material.

Effective obscuring of identity may require more than just anonymity of face. Other distinctive features, including hair, clothing, gait and voice may need to be taken into account. Where anonymity is essential, we should normally blur pictures, rather than pixelate them, and revoice contributions, rather than technically distort them, as both pixelation and technical distortion can be reversed. Audiences should be informed that the contribution has been revoiced.

To avoid any risk of ‘jigsaw identification’ (that is, revealing several pieces of information in words or images that can be pieced together to identify the individual), our promises of anonymity may also need to include, for example, considering the way a contributor or source is described, blurring house numbers, editing out certain pieces of information (whether spoken by the contributor or others)and taking care not to reveal the precise location of a contributor's home. Note that, in some circumstances, avoiding the ‘jigsaw effect’ may require taking account of information already in the public domain.

Anonymity

The victims and alleged victims of some offenses, including rape and most offenses with a sexual element, have a lifelong right not to be identified as victims of those offenses. This right exists whether or not the alleged crime has been reported to police.

The victims and alleged victims of female genital mutilation, forced marriage and human trafficking are also afforded automatic anonymity by law in relation to those alleged offences. Particular care will have to be taken over jigsaw identification in cases where it is the victim’s own family members who are accused of offences.

There is also a lifelong right to anonymity for teachers where they are accused of a criminal offence against a registered pupil at their school.

The anonymity in relation to such an allegation will end or can be lifted in a number of circumstances, including if the teacher is charged with the criminal offence. The teacher may also waive their anonymity in writing.

Right of Reply

When our output makes allegations of wrongdoing, iniquity or incompetence or lays out a strong and damaging critique of an identifiable individual or institution the presumption is that those criticised should be offered a right of reply, that is, given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.

In addition to ensuring fairness, the response to a right of reply can help achieve accuracy in our output.

Where an individual or institution is not identified we may still need to test the veracity of our evidence with those criticised.

We must ensure we have a record of any request for a response including dates, times, the name of the person approached and the key elements of the exchange.

When seeking a response the subject of allegations should normally be given the following information:

description of the allegations in sufficient detail to enable an informed response

details of the nature, format and content of the programme, including the title if significant

when and where the content will be first published (if known) and

an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond.

We should not upload a serious allegation without offering an opportunity to reply.

Any proposal to do this must consider the following and seek permission from the site owners:

• whether publishing the allegation is justified by the public interest

• there are strong reasons for believing it to be true.

• our reasons for deciding to make the information public without requesting a response from the individuals or organisations concerned may include possible interference with witnesses or those to whom we have a duty of care, or other legal reasons.

Anyone has the right to refuse to contribute to our output and it is not always necessary to mention their refusal. However, the refusal of an individual or an organisation to make a contribution should not be allowed to act as a veto on the appearance of other contributors holding different views, or on the output itself.

When our audience might reasonably expect to hear counterarguments or where an individual, viewpoint or organisation is not represented it may be appropriate to explain the absence, particularly if it would be unfair to the missing contributor not to do so. This should be done in terms that are fair. We should consider whether we can represent the missing contributor’s views based on what we already know.

Where there is a public interest, it may be acceptable for us not to reveal the full purpose of the output to a contributor or source or organisation, or to create a false persona, or account on social media. Such deception is only likely to be acceptable when the material could not be obtained by any other means. It should be the minimum necessary and proportionate to the subject matter.

Mandatory Referral

Any proposal to deceive a contributor must be referred to the management of the platform.

Privacy

We respect privacy and do not infringe it without good reason.

Meeting these ethical, regulatory and legal obligations in our output requires consideration of the balance between privacy and our right to broadcast information in the public interest. We must be able to demonstrate why an infringement of privacy is justified, and, when using the public interest to justify an infringement, consideration should be given to proportionality; the greater the intrusion, the greater the public interest required to justify it.

Legitimate expectations of privacy will vary according to the country and nature of the information, activity or condition in question, the extent to which it is in the public domain (if at all) and whether the individual concerned is already in the public eye.

There may be circumstances where people can reasonably expect privacy even in a public place. Some activities and conditions may be of such a private nature that filming or recording, even in a public place, could involve an infringement of privacy. People under investigation or in the public eye, and their immediate family and friends, retain the right to a private life, although private behaviour can raise issues of legitimate public interest.

We must balance the public interest in freedom of expression with the legitimate expectation of privacy by individuals. Any infringement of privacy in the gathering of material should be justifiable as proportionate in the circumstances of each case.

We must be able to justify an infringement of an individual’s privacy without their consent by demonstrating that the intrusion is outweighed by the public interest. Fame and celebrity is not enough.

We normally only report the private behaviour of public figures where their conduct is unlawful or where broader public issues are raised either by the behaviour itself or by the consequences of it becoming widely known. The fact of publication by other media may not justify our reporting of it.

We must balance the public interest in the full and accurate reporting of stories involving human suffering and distress with an individual’s privacy and respect for their human dignity.

When contributors give informed consent to take part in our output, they can be assumed to have waived their expectations of privacy in relation to their contribution, subject to any agreed conditions placed on their participation 

We should operate openly where there is a risk of infringing people’s privacy.

Secret recording, depending on the jurisdiction, could be illegal and should not be used unless there is significant editorial justification for it.

Where practicable we should use notices to make people aware that we are recording or live streaming and to allow them to avoid us.

When filming openly in places accessible to the public, we do not normally obtain consent from individuals who are incidentally caught on camera as part of the general scene, unless they are engaged in an activity where they have a legitimate expectation of privacy that is not outweighed by a public interest in showing them.

However, if an individual or organisation asks us to stop filming or recording because of a concern about privacy, we should normally do so, unless it is justified in the public interest to continue.

If we are contacted by someone immediately after filming has taken place with a reasonable request not to show them in the recording we should normally agree unless it is justified in the public interest not to do so.

In potentially sensitive places, for example, ambulances, hospitals, schools, prisons or police stations, we should not normally show people’s faces. We never show children’s faces unless we have explicit, written consent from a parent or guardian.

We should obtain consent before recording on private property. However, recording without prior permission may be justified on private property where the public has general access, for example, a shopping mall, railway station or airport. It may also be justified where we have reason to believe our recording will aid the exposure of illegal or anti-social behaviour or is otherwise justified in the public interest.

When recording without prior consent on private property, if the owner, legal occupier or person acting with their authority asks us to stop, we should normally do so unless it is justified in the public interest to continue.

We normally leave private property when asked to do so by the legal occupier. We should be aware of the law of trespass.

Information which discloses the location of a person’s home or family should not normally be revealed without their consent.

Whenever filming we should be aware of the risk of inadvertently capturing private information without consent, such as on written records, on computer screens or inside offices.

The privacy of an individual may be infringed by content that reveals private personal information about them, even if they are not contributing to the programme or directly included in it. This may include information that someone is under police or regulatory investigation as well as personal testimony about a third party. When such information is not already in the public domain it should not normally be published unless there is a public interest that outweighs a legitimate expectation of privacy.

When we take video and images from social media and other websites accessible to the public, they may reach a wider audience. We should consider the privacy of those featured, particularly where they did not make or publish the recording, and whether any further consent is required. We should also consider the potential impact of our re-use, particularly when in connection with tragic, humiliating or distressing events.

Where the content features individuals who have posted material about themselves on social media, their legitimate expectation of privacy may be reduced. This is particularly the case where an individual has shown an understanding of the impact that posting on social media may have on their own privacy, or where privacy controls have not been used.

This may not apply to other individuals who appear in the material particularly if they are children.

When proposing to carry out secret recording, we should be aware that the laws relating to privacy vary around the world. 

Any intrusion caused by the gathering and transmission of secret recording must be proportionate to the public interest it serves, taking into account the legitimate expectations of privacy of the individuals recorded. Some situations attract a higher legitimate expectation of privacy. These include, but are not limited to:

1. secret recording in a private place where the public do not have access

2. secret recording of health care or medical treatments

3. secret recording of identifiable people in grief or under extremes of stress or where they are otherwise vulnerable

We must not go on ‘fishing expeditions’, ie secret recording in search of crime or anti-social behaviour by identifiable individuals, or a group, when there is no prima facie evidence against them of such behaviour.

Secret recording may be used as a method of consumer, scientific or social research in the public interest, where no other methods could naturally capture the attitudes or behaviour in question. In such cases, although there may be no evidence against known individuals, there should normally be a prima facie indication that the behaviour to be researched exists in general. The results of the research should be presented so as to provide a fair and accurate representation of the research. Consent should normally be obtained retrospectively from individuals or organisations to be included in our content, or their identities should be appropriately obscured.

We must always balance the public interest in full and accurate reporting with the need to be compassionate and to avoid unjustified infringement of privacy when we report accidents, disasters, disturbances, violence against individuals or war.

We must consider the editorial justification for portraying graphic or intrusive material of human suffering and distress. When crews arriving at the scene of a disaster or emergency are under pressures that make it difficult to judge whether recording is an unjustified infringement of privacy, they will often record as much material as possible. However, in such a situation, care must be taken to assess any privacy implications.

In the immediate aftermath of an event involving death, suffering or distress, the use of more graphic material is normally justified to provide a reasonable account of the full horror. However, as the story unfolds it may become more difficult to justify the continued use of such material. Later, when it comes to considering the story in a contemporary historical context or, for example, marking its anniversary, it may become editorially justified to use the material again.

We should normally request interviews with people who are injured or grieving following an accident or disaster by approaching them through friends, relatives or advisers. We should not:

• put them under pressure to provide interviews

• harass them with repeated phone calls, emails, texts or social media messages or knocks at the door

• stay on their property if asked to leave

• normally follow them if they move on.

However, it is important that we do not inadvertently censor our reporting. For example, the extent to which the broadcast of public expressions of grief are regarded as an unacceptable intrusion varies around the world. We must consider the expectations both of the people we record, and our audience. Graphic scenes of grief are unlikely to offend or distress those victims and relatives who consented to our recording them, but they may upset or anger some of our audience.

When introducing scenes of extreme distress or suffering, words explaining the circumstances in which they were gathered may help to prevent misunderstandings and offence.

We should normally record at private funerals only with the consent of the family. There must be a clear public interest if we decide to proceed against requests for privacy.

We must consider whether surviving victims and relatives have any legitimate expectation of privacy when we intend to examine past events which involved suffering and trauma. This applies even if the events or material to be used were once in the public domain. We should consider the scale and location of the original incident and the time that has elapsed since it occurred. So far as is reasonably practicable, surviving victims or the immediate families of dead people who are to feature in the programme should normally be notified of our plans. We should only proceed against any reasonable objections of those concerned if they are outweighed by the public interest.

Doorstepping

Doorstepping is when we confront and record, or attempt to record, an interview, or announce that a phone call, video call, intercom conversation or similar is being recorded, without prior warning and for use in our content. It may involve an infringement of privacy, which must be justified in the public interest.

Doorstepping does not include vox pops. Additionally, the guidelines on doorstepping that follow are not intended to prevent the legitimate gathering of material for the daily news agenda, research purposes or for comedy and entertainment output.

We report crime and anti-social behaviour as a matter of public interest. Our coverage is aimed at giving audiences the facts in their context and reflects our right to freedom of expression and the audience’s right to receive information and ideas.

We will also reflect the work of the agencies which fight crime, examine the nature of criminality, and report on its causes and consequences.

Some of this output is likely to require production methods that carry risks and we must weigh them up, and ensure we act proportionately, so that we observe appropriate standards of behaviour, consider the consequences of our actions and avoid obstructing the work of the authorities.

This output is also likely to involve contributions from, or contact with, people who have engaged in criminal or anti-social acts. We must ensure that we do not glamorise, condone or encourage criminal behaviour. We must seek to balance the public interest in reporting crime with respect for the privacy and dignity of victims and their families. We should ensure our reporting does not add to people’s fear of becoming victims of crime if statistics suggest it is very unlikely.

Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime, or lead to disorder, must not be included in our output.

War and Terrorism

We have a special responsibility to all audiences when reporting conflict including wars, acts of terror, sieges and other emergencies.

People across the world access our services for trustworthy news and information. They expect us to provide context and analysis and to offer a wide range of views and opinions. We need to be scrupulous in applying due accuracy and impartiality.

We must take care that our journalism does not put individuals at risk of additional harm or cause unnecessary distress.

We must consider our tone and language when reporting matters involving loss of life and human suffering. Some of our audience will have relatives or friends directly involved. We should avoid causing unnecessary offence whilst also ensuring that we continue to convey the reality of events and do not unduly sanitise our reporting.

We will ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that next of kin do not learn of a relative’s death or injury from any of our content. There must be strong editorial justification for the use of very graphic pictures.

In addition to editorial and ethical considerations, the law places legal obligations on individuals – including journalists – to disclose certain information to the police as soon as reasonably practicable.

We should make it clear if our reports are censored or monitored or if we withhold information under duress, and explain, wherever possible, the conditions under which we are operating.

When reporting demonstrations, disturbances and similar events, we should treat estimates of involvement with due skepticism, report wide disparities and name the sources of the figures. We aim to offer a comprehensive and impartial view of events.

Our reporting of possible acts of terror should be responsible, bearing in mind our requirement for due accuracy and impartiality. Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones and care is required in the use of language that carries value judgements. We should not use the term ‘terrorist’ without attribution.

There is a legal and moral obligation to disclose to the police, as soon as reasonably practicable, any information which we know or believe might be of material assistance in:

• preventing the commission of an act of terrorism anywhere in the world

• securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person in the UK, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

It is a criminal offence not to disclose such information. 

Defamation and Privacy

An individual or corporation can sue for damage to their reputation over material that is published about them. This area of law is called defamation or libel and can have serious financial consequences if we get it wrong.

Whilst a number of possible defences are available, it is important to note that when relying on the truth of what was published, it is the defendant - ie you and us - who generally has to prove that it was true.

Individuals can take legal action to enforce their right to privacy, including asking the court to grant an injunction to stop true stories based on private information being made public.

All legal entities including corporations may also have enforceable rights to keep information confidential. In these cases, the court will seek to balance the right to privacy or confidentiality against the media’s right of free expression and the right of the public to be informed.  

Reporting Restrictions 

There are a number of situations in which reporting restrictions either apply automatically or can be specifically ordered by a court.

Automatic restrictions apply to:

1. reports of preliminary hearings in criminal proceedings. What can be reported is very restricted

2. reports of proceedings in Youth Courts. In particular, we must not publish anything likely to identify someone under 18 as involved in Youth Court proceedings

3. family proceedings and Court of Protection proceedings.

In particular, we must not publish anything which is likely to identify any child as being involved in such proceedings. These restrictions can be lifted or varied by a court. Some of the more common reporting restrictions which may be ordered include:

• orders preventing the identification of under-18s involved in proceedings before an adult court postponement orders, preventing publication of reports of proceedings, usually until after the conclusion of related proceedings

• anonymity orders, where the court has allowed a person’s details to be withheld.  

Contempt

Contempt of court is a criminal offense. Contempt can take many forms. The aim of the law is to prevent interference with legal proceedings. It protects proceedings in all courts and tribunals which carry out judicial functions.

Statutory contempt law bans the publication of material which creates a substantial risk of seriously prejudicing or impeding ‘active’ legal proceedings. 

The risk of causing serious prejudice is highest when the proceedings involve a lay jury, for example, in serious criminal cases.

The ‘active’ period in criminal legal proceedings starts with the granting of an arrest warrant, the arrest of a suspect or the issue of a summons. This may be well before a person is charged.

Serious prejudice to a criminal case might be caused by, for example, the publication of previous convictions.

Accessing Illegal Content

There are offenses regarding accessing and disseminating indecent images and information related to terrorism which can present difficulties when undertaking certain investigations.

Bribery 

It is illegal to give or receive a bribe anywhere in the world and there is a separate offense of bribing a foreign public official.

Data Protection

Data protection breaches in some circumstances and in certain jurisdictions can give rise to criminal sanctions as well as fines.