---

The pilot FIRE Guide to Freelancer Protection strengthens public-interest investigations by vetting and transparently disclosing the liability practices of major publishers and broadcasters, starting with the 20 below.

Funded by craig newmark philanthropies, the Guide provides the intelligence to make the process of commissioning investigations more efficient.

It's well known that many outlets do not promise liability protections to reporters. This can have a chilling effect on public-interest investigations.

But others do make the promise—and they show the way.
 

Guide Scope and Purpose

The FIRE Guide assesses whether a particular outlet promises liability protection in writing.

Any independent contractor needs a promise in writing. If an outlet does not take responsibility for a story at the time of commission, the outlet burdens the reporter of the story with untenable costs and anxiety about exposure.

The public hardly gains when a reporter, quite reasonably, balks at mortgaging their house for a sensitive story. It's the wrong reason for a story to go under-reported—or entirely un-reported.

One-quarter of the evaluated outlets have earned FIRE's highest rating, Green; but almost a quarter are Red: The Guide provides the first-ever body of reliable intelligence on liability practices across multiple outlets, in advance, to facilitate comparison.

By accurately describing the practices, the Guide helps freelancers produce important investigations confidently and effectively. It also provides incentives for outlets to adhere to standards in everybody's interest—the freelancers', their own, and ultimately, the public's.
 

List of Outlets Evaluated

The following publishers and broadcasters have been evaluated so far by the pilot FIRE Guide to Freelancer Protection:

Atlantic	Nature	Rolling Stone
Esquire	NHPR	Science
Guardian	New York Times	Stat News (Boston Globe)
Marshall Project	New Yorker	WGBH
Miami Herald	OCCRP	Wired
Mother Jones	100Reporters	Magazine 750,000+ circulation*
Nation	Politico

* Name pending additional
research and fair comment
 

Evaluation Results: Color Coding

The Guide consists of two parts:

• The Guide's Analysis and Conclusions, which explains FIRE's findings in context, carefully detailing a flawed system and its obvious fixes (also available on its own here)
• The Guide itself, which analyzes the contract-based liability practices of each publisher or broadcaster, in one-paragraph briefings that assign a color category:
   

  • Green—FIRE-approved: Takes responsibility for stories. Default written promises. Sufficiently protective of freelance investigative reporting

• Yellow—Not yet FIRE-approved: Takes some responsibility for stories. Some outlets further along than others. Insufficiently protective of freelance investigative reporting

• Red—not FIRE-approved: Consistently unwilling to make the promise. Not there and no evident progress

So far the 20 outlets break down as follows:

• Five "Greens"
• Eleven "Yellows" (seven closer to Green, four to Red)
• Four "Reds"
   

Sharing Guide Results

The Guide provides sensitive intelligence about publishers and broadcasters. To protect the outlets, FIRE

• only shares the evaluation of "cleared" outlets, those that have been given a chance at fair comment—19 of 20 outlets as of early 2025.
• tries to share the information only with recipients who use it for public-interest reporting in accord with FIRE’s mission, and for no other purposes. We screen accordingly.

Neither FIRE nor the FIRE Guide to Freelancer Protection provides legal advice.

The evaluations are always subject to additional intelligence from credible sources.

For freelancers:

• To confirm that the Guide meets your needs, review "What the Guide Does Not Do."
• For alternate FIRE resources on liability and defamation exposure, visit here.
• For more information on the Guide, review here.

For anyone interested:

• Review Guide criteria and methods here.
• Request the Guide here.

To provide feedback on the Guide, email application@firenewsroom.org.