Ethics Flowchart — Public Interest, Harm and Proportionality Step by Step

The hardest editorial decisions are not the ones where a rule is broken but the ones where every step is arguable and the pressure is to publish now. Working the sequence out loud, in order, is mostly a way of slowing the decision down enough to see where the weak link is.

Last reviewed: 24 August 2026Next review due: 24 August 2027

Ethics Flowchart

A step-by-step ethical decision guide for UK journalists, referencing IPSO Editors' Code and the NUJ Code of Conduct.

Not legal advice. This tool flags commonly applicable ethical considerations only, from the answers you give. Always take specialist legal advice for high-risk stories — see disclaimer.

Does the story involve a person who may be adversely affected?

General guidance based on IPSO and NUJ code positions. Always take specialist legal advice for high-risk stories. See /disclaimer.

How it works

It starts by asking whether the story involves a person who may be adversely affected. Answering “no” no longer ends the run: it shows a note that the accuracy and privacy clauses still apply regardless, then a “Continue” button carries you into the same sequence of questions as a “yes” would.
From there it branches through a minor check, a bereavement and trauma check, a public interest check, a whistleblower check and a speed check, showing a code-referenced explanation panel at each branch — Editors’ Code Clause 6 for children, Clause 3 and Clause 2 where there is no public interest, and source protection with PIDA 1998 for whistleblowers.
Some branches terminate: a minor with no demonstrable public interest ends at “do not publish material that identifies the child”; a bereaved subject who has not consented or signalled willingness ends at “wait, do not approach at this time”.
The speed check splits breaking news, which routes to caveating what could not be verified and why, from a fuller path routing to a verification checklist — cross-check with independent sources, full right of reply, legal review where defamation risk exists, verify documents independently.
Both paths converge on a five-point pre-publication checklist covering right of reply, accuracy, privacy, source protection and senior sign-off. A breadcrumb trail shows the route you took, alongside both a “← Back” button that reverses one step and a “Start again” reset.
Read the remaining clause numbers with care. The bereavement panel now correctly cites “IPSO Clause 4 — Intrusion into grief” — it was previously mislabelled Clause 5, and has been fixed to match this site’s own IPSO Clause Selector. But the tool still cites “NUJ Code 7” for two different duties, consideration for those affected by tragedy and source protection, and still refers to an “IPSO Clause 1.4” breaking-news provision that does not correspond to the Code’s Clause 1(iv).

When to use it

On a contested story where the argument in the room has stalled and you need to work the sequence in order.
Under breaking-news pressure, to decide explicitly what will be caveated rather than discovering later that nothing was.
Before approaching a recently bereaved person, when the cooling-off question needs to be answered before anyone picks up the phone.
When a source is a whistleblower and the secure-communications and metadata questions need to be settled before further contact.
As a teaching walk-through, where the breadcrumb trail makes the reasoning path visible afterwards.

What it does not do

Not legal advice, and some clause numbering is still unreliable. The bereavement panel’s grief citation has been corrected to Clause 4, but the “NUJ Code 7” double-duty citation and the “IPSO Clause 1.4” breaking-news citation still don’t check out. Verify every code reference against ipso.co.uk and the NUJ Code before relying on it.
It has no legal branch. There is no contempt check, no reporting-restrictions check and no defamation check anywhere in the tree — a story can walk the whole flow to a green checklist and still be a contempt. Use the Contempt Checker and the Reporting Restrictions Checklist alongside it.
It never sees the story, and every branch turns on a binary answer to a question that is not binary. “Is the story in the public interest” is the whole argument, not a button.
It reflects the IPSO Editors’ Code and NUJ Code of Conduct. It does not address the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, which structures fairness, privacy and children’s protections differently for licensed broadcast output.

More tools

This is one of the free tools on UK JournoHub. See the full tools index for the rest.

Primary sources

Editors’ Code of Practice— IPSO
Employment Rights Act 1996 Part IVA — protected disclosures— legislation.gov.uk