What Is the Ethical Issue?
Children occupy a special place in journalism ethics because they cannot fully consent to media attention, lack the power to manage reputational consequences, and are disproportionately harmed by identification in distressing or stigmatising contexts. UK press codes, UK law, and international standards all impose heightened obligations on journalists when children are involved.
The core rule is: when you are reporting on a child’s welfare — their health, family circumstances, experiences of crime or abuse, mental health, or distress — you need the consent of a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult (IPSO Editors’ Code, Clause 6). The child’s own assent matters too, particularly for older children and young people, but it does not replace adult consent.
Separately, UK law imposes restrictions that are absolute in certain contexts: children alleged or convicted of offences in youth courts cannot be identified, children who are victims or witnesses in sex cases cannot be identified, and children must not be approached at school without the school’s permission. These are legal floors, not merely ethical aspirations.
When This Matters in Practice
Reporting a child's death or serious illness
Parental consent is essential. Even with consent, the welfare test applies: would identification cause harm beyond the immediate story? Consider whether naming the child serves the public interest or merely the story's emotional impact.
Youth court proceedings
Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibits reporting that identifies the defendant. Do not name them, name their school, or publish images. A court order is needed to lift the restriction.
Interviewing a teenager about a community story
If the story touches their welfare (bullying, mental health, family circumstances), parent/guardian consent is required under IPSO Clause 6. For genuinely unrelated matters (opinions on local facilities), age and context determine the threshold.
Reporting the suicide of a young person
Apply both Samaritans Media Guidelines and IPSO Clause 5. Avoid naming the method, avoid images of the location, include helpline numbers (Samaritans 116 123; PAPYRUS 0800 068 4141 for young people). Do not glamorise or present it as a solution.
Using a child's social media post
Public accessibility is not consent. Assess whether publication could harm the child. The child's own posting of an image does not authorise a journalist to republish it in a news context, particularly where the story involves distress or stigma.
Red Flags
- ⚠Approaching a child at school without school authority permission
- ⚠Interviewing a child under 16 about welfare matters without parental consent
- ⚠Publishing a photograph of a child taken without parental consent in a welfare context
- ⚠Identifying a child in youth court proceedings (defendant, victim, or witness)
- ⚠Identifying a child victim or witness in any sexual offence case
- ⚠Using a child's distressed social media post without welfare assessment
- ⚠Naming a bereaved child before the family has been notified
- ⚠Publishing a child's image alongside a story about crime or abuse that could cause them harm
- ⚠Paying a parent for material about their child unless clearly in the child's interest (IPSO Clause 6(iv))
- ⚠Reporting a child's suicide with method detail or in a way that could prompt imitation
Pre-Publication Checklist: Children
Assess Public Interest & Social Media
Use the Public Interest Test Builder before publishing stories involving children. The Social Media Verification tool can help you assess whether images sourced from a child’s accounts are appropriate to use.
Common Mistakes
- ›Confusing legal minimum with ethical standard: The law prohibits certain identifications. Ethics requires a higher bar: not merely "can I publish this?" but "should I, and will it harm the child?"
- ›Treating parental consent as blanket permission: A parent consenting to one interview does not authorise follow-up stories, use of additional images, or publication in different contexts.
- ›Assuming social media images are fair game: If a child's image is publicly viewable on Instagram, a journalist may still breach IPSO Clause 6 by using it in a welfare-related news story without consent.
- ›Failing to include helpline numbers in youth suicide stories: Samaritans guidelines and IPSO Clause 5 guidance both recommend inclusion. Omission is a common adjudication finding.
- ›Ignoring Murray v Express on public figures' children: Reporting that a celebrity's child was spotted at a shopping centre, even in a public space, can constitute a privacy breach. The child's ordinary family life is protected.