Why some news stories are rejected

By
Media Helping Media
-

Image of an editor correcting a reporter's copy - created using Imagen 3 by David Brewer of MHMThere will be times when a news story is withheld from publication, we look at why, what changes might be needed, and how to make sure a story is ethical and legally safe.

So, you have written your story. You think you have done all you need to do to ensure it’s fair, accurate, clear, and impartial, but your editor has concerns – did you miss something? What’s the problem?

It could be that your editor has spotted some legal and ethical issues with the text. It could be that the way you worded it puts people are risk and could cause harm. Perhaps it doesn’t quite fit in the the news brands style or values. Or it might not be the right time for the story to go live.

Here we look at some of the reasons why your piece might be rejected – or why you might decided not to publish. In each case we link to training resources on Media Helping Media that explain more about the issues at stake.

1: Legal

    • Defamation
      • Issue: Publishing could unjustly damage someone’s reputation without sufficient evidence or public interest justification.
      • Action:
    • Contempt
      • Issue: The story might interfere with an active legal case or violate court reporting restrictions.
      • Action:
        • Seek legal advice.
        • Delay publication or modify the story to remove problematic elements.
        • Wait until legal proceedings conclude before publishing sensitive material
    • Privacy
      • Issue: Details may intrude on someone’s private life without proper justification.
      • Action:
        • Weigh the public interest against the individual’s right to privacy.
        • Consider redacting or anonymising sensitive details, especially when involving minors or non-public figures.
    • Confidentiality
      • Issue: Confidential information, such as medical records, protected identities etc, might be used illegally.
      • Action:
        • Remove or anonymise sensitive data.
        • Obtain consent when possible.
        • Consider using data obtained through FOI requests or other lawful means.
    • National security
      • Issue: Publishing might reveal classified or dangerous information.
      • Action:
        • Work with legal and editorial teams to assess risks.
        • Delay, edit, or anonymise sensitive content while still holding power to account where possible.

2: Ethical

  • Source protection
    • Issue: A story might put a whistleblower, informant, or vulnerable interviewee at risk.
    • Action:
      • Use encryption, pseudonyms, and secure communication methods.
      • Obscure identifying details and assess risk jointly with the source.
      • Offer final review of quotes or wording where appropriate.
  • Trauma
    • Issue: The story might cause a repeat of trauma to victims or communities.
    • Action:
      • Use trauma-informed language and framing.
      • Avoid graphic imagery or intrusive detail.
      • Consider consulting the affected individuals or experts on respectful coverage.
  • Harm
    • Issue: The story could cause distress, stigma, or incite harmful behaviour (e.g., suicide, hate speech).
    • Action:
      • Rethink presentation.
      • Include helpful context or helplines.
      • Avoid sensationalism.
      • Consult the MHM ethical codes or those of SPJ or IPSO for guidance.
  • Unverified information
    • Issue: There isn’t enough evidence to confirm the claims.
    • Action:
      • Delay publication until facts are verified.
      • Find independent corroboration, seek additional sources, or locate supporting documents.
  • Bias
    • Issue: The story lacks input from all relevant sides or perspectives.
    • Action:
      • Actively seek and include missing voices.
      • Offer the chance to respond to criticism or allegations before publishing.
      • Scour the story for any unconscious bias.
  • Sensationalism
    • Issue: The story’s tone or headlines distort the actual significance or facts.
    • Action:

3: Personal

  • Morality
    • Issue: The journalist feels the story may do more harm than good or doesn’t align with ethical values.
    • Action:
      • Consult with a trusted colleague, editor, or ethics advisor.
      • Rework the story to align with your purpose and minimise harm.
  • Conflict of interest
    • Issue: The journalist has a personal connection or stake in the story.
    • Action:
      • Disclose the conflict to your editor.
      • Hand off the story if necessary or include a disclaimer if transparency resolves the issue.
  • Mental health
    • Issue: The journalist is overwhelmed or affected by the subject matter.
    • Action:
      • Take time off, seek peer or professional support, and communicate with editors.
      • Consider collaborating with another journalist if the story must proceed.
  • Regret
    • Issue: The journalist feels uncomfortable with how the story evolved.
    • Action:
      • Step back and review the piece.
      • Consider revising or reframing it with an ethical lens.
      • Seek feedback from a colleague.

4: Editorial

  • Review
    • Issue: A lawyer or editor recommends holding or amending the story.
    • Action:
      • Cooperate with legal teams.
      • Adjust potentially risky language and ensure allegations are supported by solid evidence.
  • Strategy
    • Issue: The story doesn’t fit the outlet’s current direction or focus.
    • Action:
      • Reframe the story to fit the outlet’s audience or mission.
      • Suggest an alternative format or pitch it to a different section or partner outlet.
  • Credibility
    • Issue: The editor feels the story isn’t robust or credible enough.
    • Action:
      • Return to sources, conduct further research, or add transparency about sourcing.
      • Clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.
  • Safety
    • Issue: Publication could endanger the journalist or others involved in reporting.
    • Action:
      • Delay publication until the team is safe.
      • Use pseudonyms, encrypted tools, or partner with international outlets to share the risk.
  • Reputation
    • Issue: The story could damage the outlet’s credibility if it’s too risky or flawed.
    • Action:
      • Bolster reporting standards.
      • Strengthen sourcing, avoid hyperbole, and ensure fairness and transparency in reporting methods.

5: Logistics

  • Timing
    • Issue: The story may be strategically premature or not connected to a relevant event.
    • Action:
      • Wait for a timely news peg.
      • Prepare the piece for future publication, or adjust the format to match evolving news cycles.
  • Restrictions
    • Issue: Another organisation holds publishing rights or an embargo applies.
    • Action:
      • Renegotiate rights or wait until the restriction lifts.
      • Consider a related follow-up piece that doesn’t breach terms.
  • Resources
    • Issue: There’s not enough time, budget, or staff to complete the story properly.
    • Action:
      • Scale down the scope, apply for funding, or collaborate with another journalist or newsroom to share the workload.
  • Pressure
    • Issue: Powerful actors (advertisers, governments, corporate owners) may try to block the story.
    • Action:
      • Push for editorial independence.
      • Document the pressure.
      • If needed, partner with a less compromised outlet or international platform to publish.

.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR