Call for evidence outcome

Call for Evidence report

Updated 3 November 2021

1. Introduction

1.1 The freedom of the press and its role in holding the powerful to account have long been recognised and supported by the government. It is imperative that journalists within the UK are free to carry out their vital role, free from abuse, threats and violence. The UK published its first National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists in March 2021. Our aim is to ensure that journalists operating in the UK are as safe as possible, reducing the number of attacks and threats issued to journalists and ensuring those that are responsible for such are brought to justice.

1.2 To that end, between 2 June and 14 July 2021, the Home Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) held a Call for Evidence on Journalist Safety. The Call for Evidence was primarily addressed to journalists to understand the nature and volume of threats, abuse and violence that they face in the course of their work and their attitudes towards the response provided by employers, social media platforms, and the police and judiciary. The Call for Evidence was also open to submissions from other individuals and groups with expertise or interest in journalist safety.

1.3 This Call for Evidence received 360 responses from journalists and provided insight into key issues concerning journalist safety in the UK. The government would like to thank the respondents who shared views. The full list of questions is provided in Annex A.

1.4 The findings of this Call for Evidence presented below should be treated as indicative given the self-selected nature of participation in the survey questionnaire provided, and the relatively small sample size achieved. However, the survey was broadly representative of the journalist workforce in terms of characteristics such as gender, location and employment status (employed vs self-employed or freelance). There was an over representation of ethnic minority responses relative to the journalist workforce as a whole.

1.5 For this reason, we have not provided a full quantitative breakdown of responses and specific demographic analyses, instead focusing on key themes from the evidence provided and on areas that journalists expanded on within their responses.

2. Key issues raised

The Call for Evidence found that:

A very high proportion of respondents had experienced incidents, particularly ‘abuse’, ‘intimidation’ and ‘threats of violence’, taking place both online and offline at varying frequency.

Responses confirmed the significant impact this has on journalists and their behaviour both professionally and personally. This included influence on their journalistic output.

Over 1 in 3 female respondents indicated that they do not feel safe operating as a journalist in the UK.

The majority of respondents did not report all incidents to platforms, police and employers, due in part to poor confidence they would be progressed or taken seriously.

Responses implied low confidence in current arrangements of police and platforms to deal with incidents, with employers seen more ambivalently.

3. Analysis

This section contains a summary of the evidence provided against each part of our Call for Evidence.

Experiences of threats, abuse and violence

3.1 Nature and extent of incidents and their impact on journalists

Just over 4 in 5 journalists who responded to the survey stated that they had experienced threats, abuse or violence as a result of their work in the UK. These incidents included abuse, intimidation, threats of violence, violence, death threats, bullying, sexism, racism and homophobia.

3.1.2 There was a broadly even split in how different forms of abuse, threats and violence occurred, with just under a third taking place online, a third taking place in person, and just over a third taking place both online and in person. Whilst a full analysis of the online and offline dynamics of different forms of threats to journalist safety is not possible through data collected through this Call for Evidence, we observe that - amongst those who responded - bullying was considerably more likely to be experienced online and violence was more likely to be experienced in person.

3.1.3 In terms of frequency, the most common response to how often the forms of abuse, threats, and violence occurred was a few times a year (a third of respondents). Just over a third of respondents indicated that these were experienced monthly or more, with 1 in 5 experiencing abuse once a week or more.

3.1.4 Approximately half of respondents who had experienced threats, abuse or violence stated that this had slightly or moderately affected them as a journalist. Just under 1 in 6 stated it had extremely affected them. Reported impacts on respondents ‘as an individual’ were greater - almost 1 in 4 respondents stated they were extremely affected as an individual - compared to 1 in 6 as a journalist.

3.1.5 The Call for Evidence asked journalists to describe in more detail the impacts of incidents, which we conducted analysis on to identify the most common themes. The most prevalent identified impacts on everyday behaviour included avoiding certain places or crowds, being defensive and wary in public, and avoiding engaging with the public or readers in both physical spaces and on social media. Social media in particular was identified as making journalists more accessible and at risk, leading to precautions such as changing privacy settings to avoid anonymous online abuse.

3.1.6 Another key theme raised was the challenges faced by journalists at demonstrations. For instance, one reported that ‘Filming during crowds and demonstrations is getting more and more difficult and less safe. A growing number of protesters and activists now target media and film crews with intimidation and threats of violence.’ Similarly, another suggested ‘I feel less safe in undertaking the work that I do when covering certain demonstrations. It makes me less inclined to cover such events, which, of course, is the intention of those perpetrating the violence and issuing threats.’

3.1.7 When asked to elaborate 1 in 7 of the responses explained the knock-on effects of these experiences on journalistic output, describing how they had changed their ways of working to avoid certain topics or stories that were considered to be controversial or likely to attract abuse. For example, one explained that ‘I’ve stopped working on particular stories as a result of intimidation - not scared off but just don’t want to suffer the aggravation so move on to something else.’ Other responses highlighted the fear of abuse and violent reprisals as a result of covering particular issues. The Call for Evidence underscores the significant ‘chilling effect’ that incidents can have on journalists’ professional activities.

3.2 Gender and ethnic dimensions

A larger proportion of female than male respondents (over 1 in 3) indicated that they do not feel safe when operating as a journalist in the UK. Relatedly, more men were likely to state that the abuse had not affected them as a journalist than women, reflecting a finding of previous research with UK journalists. A very similar proportion of male and female respondents experienced threats, abuse or violence as a result of their work in the UK. Violence and abuse were more commonly experienced by male respondents and bullying more commonly reported by female respondents. However, further work is necessary to provide more detailed evidence of the distinct experience of female journalists due to increasing recognition of the gender dynamics of journalist safety. One particular response presented data that suggests threats against women journalists in the UK have been rising over the past several years, and demonstrates the diverse forms of abuse, harassment and assault to which they have been subjected. It also advocated for a tracking tool to allow journalists to report threats, anonymously where necessary, in real time to ensure all incidents are monitored in a manner that can also be analysed over time.

3.2.1 Half of female respondents had also experienced sexism during the course of their work.

3.2.2 Whilst reported rates of abuse, threats and violence did not vary across white and ethnic minority groups in this Call for Evidence, a third of respondents from ethnic minority backgrounds reported experiencing racism. Respondents from ethnic minorities were also more likely to state that abuse, threats or violence had affected them as a journalist than white respondents, with around 1 in 5 non white respondents stating that this had extremely affected them, compared to 1 in 10 of white respondents. Double the proportion of ethnic minority respondents also reported that incidents had extremely affected them as an individual.

3.2.3 Responses received suggest that in some instances satisfaction with existing arrangements for reporting, response, and support may be lower amongst female and non-white respondents.

3.3 Reporting and support

This Call for Evidence asked respondents about their reporting of incidents, including how often they report incidents to their employer, to platforms or to police, and reasons why individuals had not reported incidents. There was moderate reporting to platforms and employers, with over two-thirds reporting all or some incidents to them. There was, however, very low reporting to the police, with almost two-thirds not reporting any incidents. Only a small minority reported all threats to employers, platforms and the police.

3.4 Police

The majority of respondents who had experienced threats and/or abuse had not reported any incidents to the police. Only just over a quarter of respondents indicated that they had reported some incidents to the police, and fewer than 1 in 10 reported all incidents. The most common reasons for this were that respondents felt nothing could be done, or that they had no confidence that anything would be done about it. The majority of respondents were ‘not at all confident’ that reports would be taken seriously, and of those that had reported an incident to the police, only 15% were satisfied with how the case was handled, with 60% being dissatisfied.

3.4.1 The Call for Evidence welcomed further detail from respondents, and received over 130 responses. A common theme raised was that the police could take threats and abuse more seriously, act faster and investigate crimes, as summarised by one response stating ‘Take it seriously. Pursue the matter. Prosecute’.

3.4.2 1 in 5 respondents suggested that the police should set up new functions, including a dedicated team to work with journalists or a point of contact within the police. Many referenced the need for an easy, accessible and fast system to report incidents - particularly online abuse - for instance through a police-operated anonymous hotline or helpline. There was also a focus on the police needing to be tougher on online threats and abuse specifically, including working with platforms to investigate and reduce abuse.

3.4.3 There were calls in the responses for the police to engage more with journalists, to gain a better understanding of the journalistic profession and journalists’ role in society, for instance so that they might better recognise press cards and understand the role of journalists in covering issues such as protests. Reflecting many responses, one argued the police could ‘invest in education [and training] about how journalism is an essential part of democracy’ and around the wider role of journalists and their protection. Many respondents also expressed how the police could take practical steps to increase their presence and proactive protection at times and spaces where risks to journalists are high, for example at protests or outside courts.

3.4.4 Multiple responses suggested the police themselves contributed towards threats or abuse towards journalists. This included police physically restricting access to spaces, arresting journalists, and holding negative conceptions about the role of journalists which affect how they treat them. A number of responses also felt that ministers and other politicians contribute to this negative attitude towards journalists. One argued that politicians and individuals in power attack or criticise journalists, this gives ‘the green light for members of the public to do the same’.

3.4.5 The Call for Evidence also welcomed further detail from respondents on how the judiciary’s response to reports of threats, abuse or violence towards journalists could be enhanced. 1 in 5 responses indicated that the judiciary should take threats and abuse more seriously. Common responses focussed on how the judicial system should introduce harsher sentencing or new laws for perpetrators of online abuse and for those committing crimes against journalists. Many stated that there was an urgent need for new powers to enable police to collaborate with social media platforms to successfully investigate online abuse committed by anonymous accounts.

3.5 Employers

1 in 6 respondents who had experienced abuse, threats or violence stated that they report all incidents to their employer. The majority report some incidents, and 1 in 4 reported no incidents. The most common reason for not reporting incidents to their employer was that they felt nothing could be done, or that they had no confidence that anything would be done about it. 1 in 5 stated that they did not report incidents to their employer because they saw receiving threats, abuse or violence as part of their job, and 1 in 10 did not want to raise it because they felt it could harm their career prospects.

3.5.1 Together, these responses suggest that the normalisation of forms of abuse, threats and violence in the course of journalists’ work, combined with a perception that employers did not have the capacity or power to effectively address reported incidents, has led to significant gaps in reporting. That said, the data suggests employers are performing better than other institutions in terms of journalists’ willingness to report, although this may vary by employer within the sector.

3.5.2 Responses showed that individuals have varying degrees of confidence in their employer to take reports seriously and satisfaction with the processes in place. 1 in 5 respondents were not at all confident that incidents would be taken seriously by their employer, with 1 in 4 being extremely confident that they would be. Almost a third of respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the arrangements their employer had in place that helped them deal with incidents. This suggests employers could do more to clearly communicate their organisational processes, including amongst those who have yet to report an incident.

3.6 Platforms

Almost three quarters of respondents who experienced threats and/or abuse had been subjected to threats and/or abuse via a social media platform. Twitter was the most common platform for experiencing threats and/or abuse, followed by Facebook. Almost a third of respondents who had experienced threats and/or abuse via a platform reported no incidents. The most common reasons were that respondents felt nothing could be done, or had no confidence that anything would be done. This was reflected in poor perceptions of the platforms’ processes, with 70% of respondents ‘not at all’ confident that reports would be taken seriously and just under half ‘extremely dissatisfied’ with their processes. Several respondents made reference to how the police and other organisations could develop stronger relationships with platforms to identify and investigate perpetrators of online abuse.

4. Next steps

4.1 The evidence confirms that further research is required to build a more robust picture of the issues covered in this Call for Evidence, including analysis of experiences across demographic and other characteristics, and to track change over time. The government continues to support the protection of journalists via the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists and the National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists.

Annexes

5.1 Annex A: Call for Evidence Questionnaire

Section One: Experiences of threats, abuse and violence

Q1: How safe do you feel operating as a journalist in the UK?

[Very safe/Safe/Neutral/Unsafe/Very unsafe]

Q2: Have you experienced threats, abuse or violence as a result of your work in the UK?

[Yes/No]

[Note: this question does not refer to bullying, harassment or discrimination within the workplace]

Q3: Which of the following have you experienced during the course of, or as a result of, your work? You can select more than one option.

[Note: this question does not refer to bullying, harassment or discrimination within the workplace]

[Abuse/Bullying/Intimidation/Death threats/Threats of violence/Violence/Racism/ Sexism/None/Other [Please state]]

Q4: [if ‘yes’ to any options in Q3] Have you experienced these online, in person, or both?

Matrix: Options selected in Q2 vs [in person/online/both]

Q5: [if ‘yes’ to any options in Q3] How often have you been subject to these?

Matrix: Options selected in Q2 vs [daily/weekly/monthly/a few times a year]

Q6. How much have the threats and/or abuse that you have been subject to affected you as a journalist and as an individual?

Matrix: Journalist/Individual vs [Not at all/Slightly/Somewhat/Moderately/Extremely]

Q7: Please provide further detail on the impacts on your journalism and you as an individual

[Open text]

Section Two: Reporting and Response

Employers

Q8: [If ‘yes’ to any of the Q3 options] Please choose the option that best describes whether or how often you report threats and/or abuse to your employer.

[Report all incidents/report some incidents/report no incidents]

Q9: [If ‘some’ or ‘no’ to Q8] If you did not report these incidents to your employer, why not? Please pick the option/s which best reflect your views.

[Wanted to handle myself/Felt nothing could be done/No confidence that anything would be done about it/Felt too unimportant to progress/Did not know how or who to contact/See it as part of my job/Doesn’t affect me that much/Felt it could harm my career prospects to raise it/Other [please state]]

Q10: Do you feel confident that reported incidences would be taken seriously by your employers?

[Not at all confident/Somewhat confident/Extremely confident]

Q11: How satisfied are you with the existing arrangements of your employer in helping you to deal with these incidents?

[Very satisfied, satisfied, Neither satisfied or dissatisfied, dissatisfied, Very dissatisfied]

Platforms

Q12. [If ‘online’ in Q4] On which platforms have you suffered threats and/or abuse as a result of your work? You can select more than one option.

[Facebook/Twitter/Other]

Q13. Please choose the option that best describes whether or how often you report threats and/or abuse to the relevant online platform on which you have been subject to threats and/or abuse.

[Report all incidents/Report some incidents/Report none of the incidents]

Q14. If you did not report all or some of these incidents to the relevant online platform, why not? Please pick the option/s which best reflect your views.

[Wanted to handle myself/Felt nothing could be done/No confidence that anything would be done about it/Felt too unimportant to progress/Did not know how or who to contact/See it as part of my job/Doesn’t affect me that much/Felt it could harm my career prospects to raise it/Other [please state]]

Q15: Do you feel confident that reported incidents would be taken seriously by online platforms?

[Not at all confident/Somewhat confident/Extremely confident]

Q16: How satisfied are you with the existing arrangements of platforms in handling incidents in a responsible manner

[Very satisfied, satisfied, Neither satisfied or dissatisfied, dissatisfied, Very dissatisfied]

Police

Q17. [if ‘yes’ to any of Q3 options] Please choose the option that best describes whether or how often you report threats and/or abuse to the police.

[Report all incidents/report some incidents/report no incidents]

Q18: [If ‘some’ or ‘no’ to Q17] If you did not report incidents of threats and/or abuse to the police, why not? Please pick the option/s which best reflect your views.

[Wanted to handle myself/Felt nothing could be done/No confidence it would be investigated/Felt too unimportant to progress/Did not know how or who to contact/See it as part of my job/Doesn’t affect me that much/Other please state]]

Q19: Do you feel confident that reported incidences would be taken seriously by the police?

[Not at all confident/Somewhat confident/Extremely confident]

Q20. If you reported your case to the police, which of the following options best describes the stage that the case reached?

[Not taken further/Investigated but dropped/Charges brought but unsuccessful in court/Charges successful in court]

Q21: [If ‘all’ or ‘some’ in Q17] How satisfied were you with how your case was handled by the police once you had reported it?

[Very satisfied/Satisfied/Neutral/Dissatisfied/Very unsatisfied]

Q22: [If ‘Charges brought but unsuccessful in court/Charges successful in court in Q20] How satisfied were you with your case was handled by the judicial system?

[Very satisfied/Satisfied/Neutral/Dissatisfied/Very unsatisfied]

Section Three: Response (continued)

Q23. In your opinion, how effective are the arrangements that the police have in place around reporting incidents and providing response and support?

[Very effective/Effective/Neutral/Not effective/Not at all effective]

Q24: If anything, what are the top three things that the police could do differently to protect you from threats, abuse and/or violence?

[Open text]

Q25: In your view, how could the police and judiciary’s response to reports of physical threats or abuse towards journalists be enhanced?

[Open text]