What Is the Ethical Issue?
Doorstepping — approaching a subject at their home, place of work, or in a public place without prior arrangement — is one of the most powerful tools in a journalist’s arsenal. It can break through a wall of PR management to put serious allegations directly to the person responsible. It can also, when done badly, constitute harassment, intimidation, or an unjustified intrusion into private life.
IPSO Editors’ Code Clause 3 (Harassment) prohibits intimidation, harassment, and persistent pursuit. It requires journalists to stop questioning, telephoning, pursuing, or photographing individuals once asked to desist, and to leave private property when asked. It also places a responsibility on editors not to commission or use non-compliant material from other sources.
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) adds a further obligation of sympathy and discretion when approaching people who are bereaved or distressed. Neither clause prohibits doorstepping: both set the standard of conduct it must meet.
When Doorstepping Is and Is Not Justified
Likely justified when:
- ✓There is clear and substantial public interest (serious crime, significant public safety risk, major financial fraud)
- ✓All reasonable prior attempts to contact through normal channels have been refused or ignored
- ✓Serious allegations need to be put personally to the subject before publication
- ✓The subject is a public official or public figure in their public capacity
- ✓The approach is made politely, briefly, and with clear identification
Not justified when:
- ×The approach is a “fishing expedition” with no specific allegation to put
- ×The subject is a vulnerable person, a child, or someone in acute distress
- ×Refusal has already been given and the journalist returns or calls from different numbers
- ×The purpose is to generate dramatic footage rather than obtain genuine comment
- ×Multiple journalists from competing outlets are sent simultaneously to the same address
Red Flags
- ⚠Returning to a property after being asked to leave
- ⚠Continuing to question someone after they have said "no comment" or closed the door
- ⚠Photographing or filming on private property after being asked to stop
- ⚠Following a subject after they have walked away from the doorstep
- ⚠Using a disguise or false identity at a doorstep without clear public interest and senior editor sign-off
- ⚠Approaching a subject who has a court injunction or other protective order in place
- ⚠Using the approach as an opportunity to intimidate or apply pressure rather than seek comment
- ⚠Not identifying yourself and your publication from the outset
- ⚠Approaching the subject's children, partner, or other family members at a doorstep
- ⚠Conducting repeat doorstep visits constituting a course of conduct under the PHA 1997
Pre-Doorstep Checklist
Plan and Document Your Approach
Use the Right of Reply Generator to draft your initial written request before going in person. Use the Risk Register to log and assess the harassment and legal risk of the approach.
Common Mistakes
- ›Going in cold without prior contact: Doorstepping should be the last resort after normal contact methods have been exhausted and documented. A first approach on the doorstep without any prior written request weakens the public interest justification.
- ›Treating "no comment" as an opening bid: Once a subject says no comment or closes the door, the approach is over. Continuing to call out questions, following them down the street, or calling the next day is harassment.
- ›Failing to identify yourself: IPSO Clause 3(ii) requires identification if requested. Best practice is to identify yourself immediately. A journalist who obtains comment by not clarifying who they are may face findings of deception.
- ›Approaching on private property without permission: A garden, car park, or business premises may be private land. You must leave when asked. Continuing to stand on private property can be trespass and will engage IPSO Clause 3.
- ›Underestimating the PHA 1997 risk: Two or more doorstep approaches, combined with other contact (calls, letters, emails), can constitute a course of conduct under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Newsrooms have faced civil injunctions and criminal referrals for persistent pursuit.
Related Guides
Intrusion into Grief
Additional obligations when the subject is bereaved or in shock
Public Interest Test
The test your doorstep must pass before you can justify the approach
Harassment & Doorstepping Law
PHA 1997 risk, case law, and legal limits on journalistic pursuit
Legal Disclaimer
This guide is information, not legal advice
Primary Sources
Frequently Asked Questions
When is doorstepping ethically justified?
Doorstepping is justified when there is a clear public interest in obtaining comment; all reasonable attempts to contact through normal channels have been refused or ignored; serious allegations need to be put personally to the subject before publication; and the intrusion is proportionate to the public interest.
Does a journalist have to identify themselves at a doorstep?
Yes. IPSO Clause 3(ii) states journalists must identify themselves and whom they represent if requested. In practice, best practice is to identify yourself at the outset, not wait to be asked. Failing to do so risks a deception finding as well as a harassment finding.
Can I photograph someone on their doorstep?
On a public highway, photography of a person answering their door is generally lawful. On private property, you must leave when asked. Persistent following with a camera after a refusal will engage IPSO Clause 3 and potentially the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
What is the risk under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997?
Harassment under the PHA 1997 requires a course of conduct (two or more occasions) that the person knows or ought to know amounts to harassment. Persistent doorstepping, repeat telephone contact, following, and surveillance can all constitute harassment. The PHA provides for civil injunctions and criminal prosecution.
Can I record a doorstep conversation without consent?
Recording a conversation you are party to is generally lawful in the UK. However, covert recording on someone's private property raises issues under IPSO Clause 10. Always take legal advice before deploying covert recording at a doorstep.