How to Handle Press Releases as a UK Journalist

Anatomy of a Press Release: What to Read First

A press release is a document designed to present an organisation's preferred version of a story. Understanding its structure helps you identify what is information, what is spin, and what is missing. The standard UK press release follows a recognisable format:

• Headline and subheadline: Written to attract attention, often overstating the significance of the news. Read critically: is the headline an accurate description of what follows, or is it framing a modest development as a major announcement?
• Embargo line: If present, this will appear prominently at the top. It specifies when the information may be published. Check whether you are in a position to honour this embargo before reading further (see Embargo Discipline below).
• Opening paragraph: Should contain the who, what, when, where, and why of the story from the organisation's perspective. This is where the claim you need to verify is usually stated most clearly.
• Quotes: Almost always prepared in advance and approved by the named speaker and their communications team. They are rarely spontaneous. They are usually the least newsworthy part of a press release. Treat them as the organisation's official position, not as genuine insight.
• Boilerplate: The standardised description of the organisation at the foot of a press release. Useful for background; sometimes contains outdated or aspirational claims that need checking.
• Contact details: The PR contact for follow-up queries. Not necessarily the right person to interview for your story.

The most important questions to ask about any press release are: what is the organisation trying to achieve by sending this? What are they not telling me? Who else has an interest in this story, and what might they say?

Embargo Discipline: Why and How

An embargo is an agreement between a PR and a journalist that information provided in advance will not be published before a specified date and time. Embargoes exist for legitimate reasons: they allow journalists to prepare properly researched stories, they coordinate publication timing for maximum impact, and they allow subjects (including academics publishing research) to ensure their work is accurately represented before it is published.

Embargoes are professional conventions, not legally binding contracts. Breaking an embargo exposes a journalist to no direct legal liability, but it has real professional consequences: loss of access to future embargoed material from that organisation, damage to the relationship with the PR and potentially with the journalist's colleagues who were also under the embargo, and reputational harm within the industry. The Press Gazette regularly reports on significant embargo breaks and the resulting disputes.

The key embargo discipline questions are:

• Did you accept the embargo? An embargo binds you only if you accepted it. If a press release arrived in your inbox without prior agreement and the embargo is not noted until you have read the content, you may not be bound by it — though breaking it will still damage the relationship. Establish your outlet's policy on unsolicited embargoed material.
• Is the embargo legitimate? An embargo that requires you not to seek comment from third parties, not to do independent reporting, or not to publish related information you have obtained from other sources is not a standard embargo — it is an attempt to control your reporting. You are not required to accept such conditions.
• Is there a public interest reason to break it? If embargoed information relates to imminent public harm — a product recall, a public safety risk, a fraud in progress — the public interest in early publication may outweigh the professional courtesy of the embargo. This is an editorial decision that requires senior sign-off.
• What happens if a competitor breaks it? If another publication breaks an embargo, you are generally released from it for that story. Confirm with the PR and inform your editor immediately.

Verification: Checking the Claims

The NUJ Code of Conduct requires journalists to “strive to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.” The IPSO Editors' Code Clause 1 requires that publications do not publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information. These obligations apply fully to stories that originate in press releases: the fact that an organisation told you something does not make it true, and publishing it without verification is a failure of basic journalistic duty.

Practical verification steps for press release claims:

• Numbers and statistics: Check the methodology behind any figures in the release. Who conducted the research? What was the sample size? Who funded it? Research commissioned by an organisation with a financial interest in a particular result should be treated with additional scepticism. Request the full methodology and, where relevant, the underlying data.
• Claims about products or services: Companies frequently make comparative claims (“the UK's leading,” “the fastest,” “the first”) that cannot be verified or that are technically accurate but misleading. Ask the PR to substantiate any superlative claim before you repeat it.
• Financial figures: If a company announces profits, losses, revenues, or investment figures, check against publicly filed accounts at Companies House. Press release figures sometimes differ from the statutory accounts.
• Quotes: Verify that named individuals actually said what they are quoted as saying. Prepared quotes sometimes misrepresent more nuanced views expressed in conversations. Where you speak to the quoted person directly, they may be willing to develop the quote in more newsworthy directions.
• Context and comparison: A claim that sounds impressive in isolation may be unremarkable in context. “Sales up 20%” is unimpressive if the sector grew 40% in the same period. Always ask: compared to what?

Adding Original Reporting: Beyond the Release

The most common failure in press release journalism is publishing the story the PR wanted rather than the story the facts support. Adding original reporting transforms a PR's agenda into journalism. The key additions are:

• Third-party comment: Who else has an interest in or an informed view on this story? Independent experts, affected communities, competitors, regulators, and campaign groups can all provide perspective the press release does not. Seek comment from people with no financial interest in the outcome.
• Historical context: How does this announcement fit with what the organisation has said and done previously? Contradictions between past statements and current announcements are stories. Check previous press releases, annual reports, and coverage.
• What is missing: What has the organisation not told you? A company announcing record profits may not be mentioning job losses. A charity announcing a major grant may not be mentioning its falling donor base. The omissions in a press release are often more interesting than what is included.
• Regulatory and legal context: Is the announced initiative required by law or regulation? An organisation announcing it will do something it was already legally required to do is not making voluntary progress. Check whether the action is genuine news or mere compliance.
• Data: Can you find publicly available data that supports, contradicts, or contextualises the claim in the release? Companies House, ONS, government statistical releases, and FOI responses can all provide the basis for a counter-narrative or a richer story.

Attribution: How to Credit a Press Release

Attribution is both a legal and an ethical requirement. If you publish information that came from a press release without indicating that it is the organisation's own account of events, you risk presenting promotional material as independent journalism. The degree of attribution required depends on what you have independently verified.

• Claims you have independently verified can be stated as fact with appropriate sourcing (“according to Companies House filings...”).
• Claims you have not independently verified should be attributed to the organisation (“the company said...” or “according to the firm's announcement...”).
• Quotes taken directly from a press release should be attributed to the release or the named individual, making clear they are prepared statements rather than direct responses to your questions.
• Statistics from commissioned research should note who commissioned the research (“a poll commissioned by X found...”).

Cutting and pasting text from a press release without attribution — “churnalism” in the industry term — is both an ethical failure and a copyright risk. Press releases are generally made available for reproduction, but verbatim reproduction of large sections without attribution implies that the content is the journalist's own work when it is not.

Pitch vs Placement: Maintaining Editorial Control

The distinction between a pitch and a placement is fundamental to editorial independence. A pitch provides you with information, access, or a story idea that you then develop independently. You decide the angle, the sources, the framing, and the publication format. The PR has given you a starting point; the journalism is yours.

A placement is a prepared story that a PR expects you to publish, substantially as written, in exchange for access or exclusivity. Placements are standard in certain types of lifestyle and trade journalism but should be clearly labelled as such (as commercial content or sponsored content) rather than presented as independent editorial. Publishing a placement as if it were editorial journalism is a breach of IPSO Clause 1, the NUJ Code, and potentially of the Advertising Standards Authority's rules on advertorial.

The warning signs that a PR is seeking a placement rather than offering a pitch:

• The PR asks to see your copy before publication or asks for the right to approve quotes
• The PR specifies the angle, length, or format they require
• Access or exclusivity is explicitly contingent on coverage being positive or on your not seeking third-party comment
• The PR sends a pre-written “suggested article” or “draft story” they would like you to use

If you encounter these conditions, decline them and explain that your publication's editorial standards do not permit copy approval or conditional access. Report the approach to your editor. If the PR is offering genuinely newsworthy information on terms that include conditions incompatible with editorial independence, those conditions should be refused and the information pursued through other means.

NUJ Code and IPSO Standards

The NUJ Code of Conduct requires journalists to “produce no material of a promotional nature for advertisers” and to “strive to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.” Publishing unverified press release content, allowing copy approval, or accepting conditions on coverage that give PRs editorial control are all potentially in breach of the Code.

IPSO's Clause 1 (Accuracy) requires that publications do not publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information and that they distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact. Reproducing unverified claims from press releases without attribution or caveat is a breach of this clause. IPSO's Clause 1(iii) explicitly requires that publications “distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture, and fact.”

The CIPR Code: What PRs Are Bound By

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Code of Conduct binds its members to professional standards that include honesty and transparency. CIPR members must not “knowingly mislead” journalists or the media, must not engage in “deceptive or dishonest practices,” and must “maintain the highest standards of professional endeavour, integrity, confidentiality, financial propriety and personal conduct.”

Understanding that professional PRs are themselves bound by ethical codes is useful for two reasons. First, it gives you grounds to call out a PR who has provided misleading information or attempted to gain editorial control: you can note that their conduct may breach their own professional code. Second, it helps you understand that most experienced PRs know the rules and will not attempt to violate them openly — the PRs most likely to cause problems are often the least experienced or the least professionally qualified.

If you believe a PR has deliberately misled you with false information in a press release, the CIPR's Professional Practices Committee handles complaints from members of the public and media. Making a formal complaint is rarely the first step, but knowing the option exists is useful.

Practical Checklist

Run through these before publishing any story that originated as a press release:

• I have checked the embargo status and understand when I can publish
• Key factual claims in the release have been independently verified or clearly attributed to the issuing organisation
• Statistics and research figures include information about who commissioned them and the methodology
• I have sought comment from at least one independent third party with no financial interest in the outcome
• Any quotes I am using are attributed to the press release or to the named individual as a prepared statement
• I have not agreed to copy approval, positive framing, or exclusion of third-party comment as a condition of access
• The story contains original reporting beyond the content of the press release itself
• If the content is commercial or sponsored, it is clearly labelled as such
• I have checked what the release does not say as well as what it does

Common Mistakes

• Publishing without verification: The most common and most serious failure. Inaccurate information in a published press release story is the journalist's responsibility, not the PR's. “The press release said so” is not a defence to an IPSO accuracy complaint.
• Reproducing prepared quotes as if they were spontaneous: A quote from a press release is a prepared statement. Presenting it as if the executive said it spontaneously in response to your questions is misleading. Make clear in your copy that the quote was provided in a statement.
• Not asking what is missing: The most important stories hidden in press releases are usually about what the organisation has not mentioned. Compare the release to previous statements, recent filings, and industry context.
• Accepting copy approval in exchange for access: Copy approval is incompatible with editorial independence. No access arrangement justifies it. If offered, decline and report to your editor.
• Publishing commissioned research as if it were independent: Research paid for by a company to support a marketing claim is not the same as independent academic research. Always note who funded the research.
• Not knowing your publication's embargo policy: Unsolicited embargoed material is the most common source of confusion. Know your publication's position before you read the content.

Red Flags

• A press release that conditions access or exclusivity on positive coverage or on not seeking third-party comment
• Statistics with no information about methodology, sample size, or who commissioned the research
• A PR who asks to see your copy before publication or to approve quotes
• Financial figures in a release that do not match the most recent Companies House filings
• A release that embargoes a story and also prohibits you from gathering additional information independently during the embargo period
• A “sponsored content” arrangement that is not labelled as such in the published piece

Primary Sources

• NUJ Code of Conduct — nuj.org.uk
• IPSO Editors' Code of Practice (Clause 1) — ipso.co.uk
• CIPR Code of Conduct — cipr.co.uk
• Press Gazette — Industry reporting on embargo disputes and PR-journalism relations
• ASA Guidance on Labelling Advertorials — asa.org.uk
• Investigative Journalism Techniques for UK Reporters — UK JournoHub