The Smart Move of Protecting Freelancers 

 

Why publishers and broadcasters should 
legally protect investigative freelancers 

 

By Mother Jones Chief Executive Officer Monika Bauerlein; and
Freelance Investigative Reporters and Editors (FIRE) director Laird Townsend

  

Publishers and broadcasters can actually protect freelancers from liability in sensitive investigations—and the smart ones do, for these reasons. 

 

♦ There’s no downside to protecting a freelancer 

• It doesn’t cost anything: Most media insurance automatically includes independent contractors or let outlets choose to cover them. 

• It’s safer not only for the freelancer, but for the publisher. 

 

♦ It’s the right thing to do 

• Any outlet that has vetted an investigative story—and theoretically would benefit or receive an award for it—should take responsibility for the journalism and the journalist. 

• Indemnifying the reporter encourages reporting in the public interest. When an outlet refuses to protect them from liability, freelancers must take harbor in “safer” stories.  

• In return for committing to defend freelancers against defamation and newsgathering-related claims, outlets can expect (and demand in writing) a commitment to conduct rigorous, fair reporting; and to cooperate with factchecking, editing, and legal defense.  

 

♦ It’s sensible business strategy 

• Refusing to protect freelancers is not going to stop a lawsuit  

• Plaintiffs don’t care that there’s an indemnity clause distancing the media company from the freelancers by offloading exposure onto them. They may well sue the outlet anyway. 

• Libel plaintiffs no longer litigate just to set the record straight. Now it’s often legal warfare against the media—not to win, but to inflict pain. 

• Or even just to brag that they’re doing it—which can play well with certain constituencies. They’ll be motivated to sue both reporter and outlet. 

• Circulation matters; reputation matters 

• Media diversification has fostered furious competition for readers’ attention. Investigative stories serving the public interest are among the most highly trafficked.  

• With newsroom cuts, investigative freelancers are an increasingly important asset.  

• Word travels. If your outlet becomes known for throwing reporters under the bus, the best reporters will stay away. 

 

♦ Full protection is the smart legal strategy 

• Indemnity clauses are actually risky for legal defense. 

• A reporter who is not included in the outlet’s defense may be incentivized to communicate separately with the plaintiff or negotiate a separate settlement.  
• Plaintiffs have occasionally tried to peel the reporter away from the publisher, offering to drop the case against them in return for “helpful” information to be used against the publisher.  
• Smart publishers or broadcasters realize that they want freelancers on the team, and not a potential liability in litigation. 

 

♦ A fair policy is doable—and sustainable  

• If you expose freelancers to liabilities and burden them with their own defense, you are unnecessarily alienating your most important asset. 

• Committing to legal defense upfront, in exchange for the freelancer’s promise to uphold journalistic standards and participate in any legal defense, is not difficult. It can be easily reflected in a contract. And it’s right at every level. 

---