Doorstepping: why journalists knock on doors and how it is regulated

“Doorstepping” or “doorknocking” – approaching someone at home or at their workplace – can be an important way for journalists to gather information. Depending on the nature of the story, it might provide a journalist with an opportunity to make a personal connection with a source and explore the human dimension that will bring a story alive; or it might create an opportunity for challenge, perhaps of a person who has been attempting to evade scrutiny.  It may be a routine contact, or it may be a highly challenging and sensitive task – such as in the aftermath of a death or serious injury.

When done responsibly, it can contribute to the public interest and give people a fair opportunity to comment on a story that affects them. At other times, it risks causing distress, invading privacy and breaching the Editors’ Code of Practice – the framework IPSO uses to regulate the press.

As ever, especially in more challenging cases, there is a balance to be struck in regulating the press between respecting privacy and enabling journalists to seek responses to legitimate questions.

Privacy is at the heart of the Editors’ Code. Clause 2 states:

“Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications… Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent.”

Attempts to obtain comment at someone’s home can be straightforward. Each case that comes to IPSO is based on its own merits and the individual circumstances. The most serious cases are heard by the Complaints Committee. Its rulings consistently frame repeated approaches or uninvited visits as potential harassment when they become excessive.

Even so, there are good editorial reasons that reporters might approach people’s homes or workplaces unannounced.

Speaking to a person directly often provides more accurate and detailed information than can be gleaned from social media posts or other sources.

It’s a way for journalists to verify facts quickly, especially when a story is breaking.

Journalists are expected to give people a fair opportunity to comment when they are at the centre of a story. A direct approach can be the fastest way to meet that obligation when a journalist is writing about sensitive, controversial or critical stories.

For those caught up in a newsworthy event, speaking to a journalist face-to-face can be helpful. It can give them a fair opportunity to comment, pay tribute to someone, correct misinformation, or share their experiences. It’s also an opportunity to shape the way a story is told, for instance by providing a positive comment, an opinion, or photos.

Despite its potential to develop good relationships between someone at the centre of a story and a journalist, doorstepping can go wrong. A journalist arriving unannounced can be perceived as intrusive or threatening, particularly at moments of distress. Grief and shock can quickly turn to anger and upset when a camera or notebook appears outside someone’s home. What begins as a legitimate attempt to build a relationship or seek comment can lead to reputational damage for the publication and reporter, or harm to the person approached.

And while most interactions happen without incident, there are sometimes practical dangers. Journalists have been chased from properties, verbally abused, or accused of harassment when boundaries are misunderstood or poorly communicated. Even where the questions themselves are fair, the setting can distort the exchange: neighbours are watching, emotions can be raw, and the interviewee may feel ambushed rather than informed.

In those circumstances, consent is often unclear and the resulting material can raise questions about fairness, accuracy and intrusion.

Journalists might consider if there are less intrusive ways to try first, such as a phone call, an email, or approaching via an intermediary. Is the person being approached vulnerable because of bereavement, trauma, or health issues?

It is important news teams think about a direct approach in advance. A failed doorstep can have lasting consequences. Complaints and regulatory scrutiny may follow, particularly if the interaction is filmed or shared online.

These risks underline why doorstepping demands thought and judgment. The doorstep is a place where editorial oversight, clear processes and sensitivity are required.

• Goodfellow v dailymail.co.uk A woman said the Daily Mail breached her privacy, harassed her and intruded into her grief following the death of her son’s partner. The journalist had entered her porch which was behind a lockable door. The IPSO’s Complaints Committee ruled that the journalist had breached the Editors’ Code of Practice and the publisher was required to publish an adjudication.
• Rizwan v Daily Mirror IPSO rejected a complaint that the Daily Mirror had breached the Editors’ Code by doorstepping a hunter of animals in Africa at his home. The Committee did not conclude that the publication had persisted in contacting the complainant after being asked to desist from doing so, or that the reporter had acted in a harassing or intimidating fashion.
• McGarry v The Scottish Sun Within a ruling that found a breach of the Editors’ Code, which led to the publication of an adjudication because of the behaviour of journalists, the Complaints Committee set out that the presence of journalists outside someone’s home in and of itself is not a breach of the Code. The complainant had not asked the journalists to leave, and no one had made such a request on her behalf.
• The Family of John Chapman v The Sun The publication breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code when a reporter remained at a family home when parents became aware of the death of their son who was an aid worker killed in an airstrike in Gaza. However, the Committee was clear “the decision to seek comment from the family did not, in and  of itself, constitute a breach of Clause 4, so long as the approach was handled in accordance with Clause 4; the death of an aid worker in these circumstances was a significant and legitimate news story.”
• Arcadia Group v The Daily Telegraph The Complaints Committee ruled that corporate bodies cannot claim to be harassed when their staff or former staff are approached for comment.
• Warwickshire Police v Daily Mail Beyond consideration of harassment, editors need to be aware that other clauses of the Editors’ Code can be breached during an approach. In this case, private information about victims of sexual assault was shared, breaching the Code.

Free pre‑publication advice

Did you know IPSO offers free, confidential and non-binding pre‑publication advice on editorial matters, including sensitive approaches? Complaints Officers can be contacted to discuss Code issues during office hours via 0300 123 2220. Out of hours, where necessary, a Complaints Officer on duty can be contacted via 07799 903 929.