Why hostile-subject interviews require a different approach
Putting allegations to a subject who would rather not speak to you is one of the most technically demanding skills in journalism. Done poorly, it produces an evasive non-answer, a defamation risk, or a complaint to IPSO. Done well, it fulfils your professional obligations under the Editors' Code, gives the subject a fair opportunity to respond, and produces evidence of exactly how they chose to answer — or not answer.
IPSO Clause 1 requires accuracy; the NUJ Code of Conduct requires members to do nothing that could endanger the safety of sources and to maintain respect for the rights of others. The BBC Editorial Guidelines add a further layer requiring proportionality and editorial justification for any confrontational technique. These frameworks do not prevent tough journalism — but they set the standards you must meet.
This guide covers the preparatory steps, the interview itself, the right-of-reply process, recording rules, and what to do when a subject refuses all contact.
When these techniques are most important
- 1You are putting specific allegations to a subject who has retained a PR firm, lawyer, or communications team.
- 2The subject has a history of refusing media requests or litigating against journalists.
- 3Your story carries significant defamation risk and you need a clear record of the right-of-reply process.
- 4A source has given you documents or information the subject will deny, and you need to manage the confrontation carefully.
- 5You are conducting an on-camera interview for broadcast and the subject may attempt to walk out or refuse to answer.
- 6The subject is a public official who has statutory right-of-reply expectations under the Editors' Code.
Red flags and risks
- Ambush interviews: approaching a subject without warning at their home or workplace is permissible in narrow public-interest circumstances under IPSO Clause 9, but risks both legal challenge and editorial criticism. Always exhaust conventional approaches first.
- Off-the-record traps: subjects who brief extensively off the record and then deny the conversation took place. Establish ground rules before the interview begins, not after.
- Recording without lawful basis: covert recording by a journalist not party to the conversation may breach RIPA 2000. Always seek legal advice before any covert operation.
- Allowing a PR-coached subject to reframe your questions: their reframe becomes the answer of record. Return to your original question explicitly.
- Combining a hostile interview with document confrontation without legal review: showing a source document to a hostile subject can trigger a legal injunction if the subject can argue it is confidential.
- Publishing a denial that is itself defamatory of a third party: a subject may use their right-of-reply response to make claims about others that you should not reproduce without verification.
Pre-interview preparation checklist
- I have done a full OSINT background on the subject including Companies House, BAILII, and media archive searches.
- I have prepared a written right-of-reply letter listing specific allegations — reviewed by my editor and, where defamation risk exists, a media lawyer.
- I have set a clear and reasonable deadline for the subject to respond (usually 48–72 hours for a complex investigation).
- I have decided my recording approach and confirmed it is lawful in the context of this interview.
- I have prepared a question structure that builds from less sensitive to most sensitive, so the subject cannot derail the interview at the outset.
- I have copies of all key documents in front of me so I can challenge specific factual denials.
- I have agreed the ground rules (on/off the record) before the interview begins, not during.
- I have briefed my editor on the interview plan and confirmed editorial sign-off for the approach.
- I have a note-taker or second journalist present if possible for disputed interviews.
- I have a contingency plan if the subject walks out or attempts to prevent recording.
Templates for right-of-reply and pre-publication review
Use our right-of-reply letter template and pre-publication legal risk checklist to structure your approach to hostile subject interviews.
Common mistakes
- Not putting allegations in writing before the interview: an oral right-of-reply is harder to document and leaves you exposed if the subject later claims they were not given adequate notice.
- Accepting a partial denial and not pressing for a specific answer to each allegation.
- Failing to accurately reflect the subject's response in the published piece, even if the response is evasive.
- Treating “no comment” as equivalent to guilt — it is not, and framing it as such risks a successful IPSO complaint.
- Conducting the interview alone when the subject is represented by a lawyer or PR: you need a witness.
- Not keeping a complete record of every communication in the right-of-reply process.
- Allowing a subject to extend the deadline indefinitely: give a clear, reasonable deadline and hold to it.
Related guides
Primary sources
- IPSO Editors' Code of Practice— IPSO
- NUJ Code of Conduct— NUJ
- BBC Editorial Guidelines— BBC
- Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism— University of Oxford
- Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000— legislation.gov.uk
Frequently asked questions
Am I legally allowed to record an interview without telling the subject in the UK?
In England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland there is no statutory prohibition on a journalist recording a conversation they are themselves party to without informing the other person. However, IPSO's Editors' Code (Clause 10) restricts covert recording except where it can be justified in the public interest, and the BBC Editorial Guidelines require editorial approval for covert recording. Recording a private telephone call without consent may also engage the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in certain circumstances. In practice, always record overtly where possible and seek legal advice before any covert recording.
What is a right-of-reply and when must I give one?
A right-of-reply is the opportunity you give a subject to comment on, correct, or challenge allegations before you publish. IPSO's Editors' Code (Clause 1) requires that publications take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information, and Clause 1(iii) requires a prompt correction when inaccuracies are published. In practice, an adequate right-of-reply means putting specific allegations to the subject in writing, giving reasonable time to respond, and accurately reflecting any response in your published piece. Failing to give a right-of-reply is one of the most common reasons for successful IPSO complaints and defamation claims.
What should I do if a subject refuses all contact ahead of publication?
Document every attempt to contact them — dates, methods, and the content of each approach. If a PR or communications team is involved, direct your right-of-reply to them formally in writing. Put your specific allegations in writing with a clear deadline. You can publish “did not respond to requests for comment” or “declined to comment” but only after genuine attempts to reach them. Keep all correspondence. If the refusal itself is newsworthy, you can report it.
What does “off the record” mean and how should I handle it?
Off the record has no single legal or editorial meaning in the UK — it means whatever you and the source agree it means before the conversation. Establish ground rules before the interview: “on the record” (attributable and quotable), “background” (can inform but not quote directly), or “off the record” (not to be used at all). Once a ground rule is agreed, you are ethically bound by it. Be wary of subjects who attempt to go “off the record” after making a damaging statement — you are not obliged to accept a retroactive ground rule change, but manage this clearly in the moment.
How should I prepare for an interview with a subject who is media-trained or PR-coached?
Research the subject's previous interviews and press coverage to identify their habitual talking points and evasions. Prepare your questions in a logical order that builds towards the most important allegation, so they cannot derail the interview early. Ask closed questions for specific factual matters (“Did you attend the meeting on 3 March?”) and open questions for their account. If they pivot to a pre-prepared answer, acknowledge it briefly and return to your question: “That's helpful context. But I want to return to my question about X.” Have all documentary evidence in front of you so you can challenge specific denials.
When should I involve my editor and a media lawyer before an interview?
Before any interview that will put serious allegations to a subject — particularly allegations that carry defamation risk, contempt risk, or that involve sensitive source material — your editor should be aware. A pre-publication legal read is standard practice at most reputable outlets before publication of any significant investigative piece. Some outlets require a legal sign-off on the right-of-reply letter itself. The cost of a pre-publication legal read is almost always lower than the cost of defending an IPSO complaint or a libel action.