Standard protective language
Where a publisher or broadcaster does protect a freelancer from liability, it would typically cover only action arising out of the story itself, as opposed to any off-script comments made without the outlet’s approval (e.g., in social media, talk shows). Replies to commenters, including social-media provocateurs, can leave a freelancer particularly exposed.
But with that caveat, the basic version of indemnification language might resemble this abridged sketch from the published FIRE Contract Template:
[S]ubject to the limitations …below, Outlet shall indemnify Reporter for the costs of any legal actions … and shall be solely responsible for the costs of representation …
As always, the “limitations” cited are the key. They are promises that the reporter must fulfill at risk of losing protection. Among the promises is not to act with “Actual Malice,” in the Template’s case as determined by a third party:
“The Outlet determines after publication through an independent legal review that the Draft Story was produced with Actual Malice (“knowing falsity or reckless disregard”)
In promising to avoid these elements of “Actual Malice”—in practical terms, intentionally reporting something you know is false and defamatory or systemically avoiding something that could be exculpatory—you are making a realistic promise.
In exchange, the outlet should indemnify you in writing, in advance.
The rest is details, available by requesting the published FIRE Contract Template or by reviewing various other FIRE Tip Sheets—including those on realistic promises or "warranties," examples of contracts revised to indemnify reporters, and where possible, an augmented version of indemnification.