When outlets do the right thing
To “indemnify” a party is to promise to pay its legal costs. Responsible news outlets do indemnify freelance reporters for investigations. With a compelling story and a record of upholding professional journalistic standards, you may have more options than you think. But it may require a request—and some negotiation.
Some editors may struggle to support a freelancer in-house. But of all the outlets that have fielded FIRE-supported requests to include missing liability protection, only a tiny percentage ultimately found it impossible to comply: Almost all accepted the indemnification changes.
The key is: indemnification was secured in writing, up front—in advance. It’s too late to wait until legal action may take place.
Two caveats about arranging the protection:
- In certain circumstances, a freelancer can effectively secure her needs with work-around language that can be easier for an outlet to accept. Such language
- doesn’t work in all cases
- cannot be outlined generically
- is easy to dangerously misapply
- is available by arrangement with FIRE only.
- Indemnification normally doesn't require the outlet to do or pay anything, but would require paperwork if an outlet has a specific type of insurance policy.
But otherwise, as you’ll see from various FIRE Tip Sheets, indemnification language itself is straightforward: it amounts to assurance up front, in writing, that
- the outlet will take responsibility for your story, provided you keep certain promises
- their media insurance will cover you (duration of coverage and related details here).
The result: You get the confidence to follow your reporting where it leads; and to know that if sued—the rare lawsuits tend to be baseless attempts at intimidation—you’ll work closely with the outlet’s legal team, get through it, and live to do more public-interest reporting. That’s the goal and it starts with safe promises.