Diversity & Inclusion Audit Pack
Five templates for auditing the diversity of your newsroom and your content - a source-diversity tracker, a contributor pay-equity check, a representation audit checklist, an inclusive-language quick-reference, and an accessibility spot-check.
Last reviewed: Next review due:
Note:These are self-audit tools, not quotas and not legal advice. Editorial relevance and newsworthiness come first. Where you record information about people’s characteristics, remember it may be special category data under UK GDPR - collect only what you need, for a clear purpose, and keep it secure.
Who this pack is for
This pack is for reporters, editors, and newsroom managers who want to check - not just assert - that their journalism and their newsroom are fair and representative. It gives you simple, repeatable instruments to look at whose voices you quote, whether contributors are paid consistently, how communities are portrayed, whether your language is inclusive, and whether your output is accessible.
The templates are grounded in the IPSO Editors’ Code Clause 12 (Discrimination) and in widely shared inclusive-reporting norms, with a nod to the Equality Act 2010 framework for pay fairness and accessibility. They contain no benchmark figures or claimed statistics: every number is one you fill in from your own output. Use them as a recurring practice rather than a one-off exercise, and pair them with the guides linked below.
What’s in this pack
Five templates - copy, adapt, and run on a schedule.
Template 1: Source-Diversity Tracker
A row-per-source log that shows, over time, whose voices your coverage centres - a self-audit tool, never a quota.
Template 2: Contributor Pay-Equity Check
A periodic check that contributors doing comparable work are paid on a consistent basis, with steps to flag and fix outliers.
Template 3: Content Representation Audit Checklist
A checklist to run on a sample of published output: who appears, how they are described, and how they are framed.
Template 4: Inclusive-Language Quick-Reference
A short desk aid of principles and pre-filing checks for describing people fairly and accurately.
Template 5: Accessibility Spot-Check
A fast pass on the accessibility basics journalists control: alt text, captions, transcripts, headings, links, and plain language.
Template 1: Source-Diversity Tracker
A row-per-source log that shows, over time, whose voices your coverage centres - a self-audit tool, never a quota.
SOURCE-DIVERSITY TRACKER Purpose: record who you quote so you can see, over time, whose voices your coverage centres. Track only what you can observe or what a source volunteers - never guess, and never record sensitive characteristics without a clear reason and, where relevant, consent. Period covered: [MONTH / QUARTER] Desk / reporter: [NAME] For each named source quoted on the record, log one row: Date | Story slug | Source name | Role or expertise | Named or anonymous | Gender (if volunteered/observed) | Region or nation of the UK | Sector (gov / academia / business / community / frontline) | First-time or repeat source | How found (contact book / callout / event / referral) Review prompts at period end: - Which categories are over-represented? Which voices are missing? - How many sources were first-time contacts rather than repeats? - Are frontline and community voices present, or only official spokespeople? - One action for next period: [e.g. build two new contacts in an under-represented area]. Note: this is a self-audit tool, not a quota. Relevance and newsworthiness come first (see IPSO Editors' Code Clause 12 on when personal characteristics are and are not relevant).
Template 2: Contributor Pay-Equity Check
A periodic check that contributors doing comparable work are paid on a consistent basis, with steps to flag and fix outliers.
CONTRIBUTOR PAY-EQUITY CHECK Purpose: a periodic check that freelances and contributors doing comparable work are paid on a consistent basis, regardless of who they are or how hard they negotiate. Period covered: [DATES] Reviewer: [NAME / TITLE] Step 1 - list commissions. For each commission in the period, record: Contributor | Format (news / feature / analysis / photo / audio) | Length (words or duration) | Fee paid | Rate per 1,000 words or per day | Rush or standard | Rights acquired (first UK / all rights / syndication) Step 2 - group like with like. Cluster commissions of comparable format, length, and rights. Step 3 - flag outliers. Within each cluster, identify fees more than [X]% below the cluster median and ask: is there a defensible editorial reason, or an equity gap? Step 4 - check the pattern. Do lower fees cluster around any group of contributors (for example, newer contributors, or those based outside major cities)? A pattern matters more than a single figure. Step 5 - act and record. Note any rate corrections agreed and any change to your standard rate card. Share your rate bands with contributors where you can - transparency reduces inconsistency. This is an internal fairness tool. It is not legal advice on equal-pay or employment-status obligations; take specialist advice where a contributor may in fact be a worker or employee.
Template 3: Content Representation Audit Checklist
A checklist to run on a sample of published output: who appears, how they are described, and how they are framed.
CONTENT REPRESENTATION AUDIT - CHECKLIST Run this on a sample of published output (for example, one set of homepage stories, or a themed series). Answer for the sample as a whole, with examples. WHO APPEARS [ ] Whose experiences are centred - and whose are described only from the outside? [ ] Are people from a given community quoted as experts on subjects beyond that community, or only about it? [ ] Do images and captions reflect the range of people the story concerns? HOW THEY ARE DESCRIBED [ ] Are personal characteristics (race, religion, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation) mentioned only where genuinely relevant? (IPSO Editors' Code, Clause 12.) [ ] Is any language prejudicial, pejorative, or reliant on stereotype? [ ] Are individuals described on their own terms, or defined solely by a group label? FRAMING AND CONTEXT [ ] Does the coverage rely on a single narrative about a community, or show a range of experience? [ ] Are structural causes explained, or is a group implicitly blamed for outcomes? [ ] Would a member of the community recognise themselves fairly in this coverage? ACTIONS [ ] Top three findings: [LIST] [ ] Changes to commissioning, sourcing, or style guidance: [LIST] [ ] Date of next audit: [DATE]
Template 4: Inclusive-Language Quick-Reference
A short desk aid of principles and pre-filing checks for describing people fairly and accurately.
INCLUSIVE-LANGUAGE QUICK-REFERENCE A short desk aid, not an exhaustive style guide. Principles first; adapt specifics to your house style and, above all, to how the people you write about describe themselves. PRINCIPLES - Relevance test: name a personal characteristic only if it is genuinely relevant to the story (IPSO Editors' Code, Clause 12). - Ask, do not assume: where practical, ask people how they wish to be described - names, pronouns, and identity terms - and respect it. - Precision over euphemism: use accurate, specific terms; avoid coy substitutes and outdated clinical language. - Individuals, not monoliths: quote people rather than speaking for a whole community. - Avoid the gratuitous: drop details of race, religion, disability, or immigration status that add nothing but othering. QUICK CHECKS BEFORE FILING - Have I described anyone by a characteristic that is not relevant to the story? - Have I treated a group as a single voice where I should quote individuals? - Have I checked names, pronouns, and preferred terms with the people concerned or a reliable source? - Would this wording read as fair to the person it describes? When in doubt, ask the person or a specialist organisation, and consult your house style. Language changes - review this reference periodically.
Template 5: Accessibility Spot-Check
A fast pass on the accessibility basics journalists control: alt text, captions, transcripts, headings, links, and plain language.
ACCESSIBILITY SPOT-CHECK
A quick check that published content can be used by people with a range of access needs. Not a full audit - a fast pass on the things journalists control. For a formal review, involve your web or product team and disabled users.
IMAGES AND GRAPHICS
[ ] Does every meaningful image have descriptive alt text? Is decorative-only imagery marked as such?
[ ] Do charts and infographics have a text or table alternative conveying the same information?
VIDEO AND AUDIO
[ ] Are videos captioned accurately, rather than left with unchecked auto-captions?
[ ] Do audio and podcast items have a transcript?
TEXT AND STRUCTURE
[ ] Are headings used in a logical order so the piece can be navigated by screen reader?
[ ] Do links describe their destination ("read the report") rather than "click here"?
[ ] Is meaning ever carried by colour alone (for example, red for bad) without a text label?
LANGUAGE
[ ] Is the writing as plain as the subject allows? Are unavoidable jargon and acronyms explained on first use?
RESULT
[ ] Issues found: [LIST] Fixed now: [LIST] Referred to product team: [LIST]
[ ] Reviewer: [NAME] Date: [DATE]Primary sources
- IPSO Editors' Code of Practice - Clause 12 (Discrimination): prejudicial or pejorative reference, and the genuinely-relevant test
- NUJ Code of Conduct - fair and accurate reporting and the duty not to produce material that encourages discrimination
- Ofcom Broadcasting Code - harm, offence, and fairness rules relevant to representation in broadcast
- Equality Act 2010 - the legal framework underpinning pay fairness, non-discrimination, and reasonable adjustments
- W3C Web Accessibility Initiative - WCAG - the accepted standard for accessible digital content behind the spot-check basics
Frequently asked questions
What does IPSO Editors' Code Clause 12 say about discrimination?
Clause 12 (Discrimination) has two parts. First, the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any physical or mental illness or disability. Second, details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness, or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story. The clause is about individuals, and the audit templates in this pack help you apply its "genuinely relevant" test consistently across your coverage.
Is a diversity audit about hitting quotas?
No. These templates are self-audit tools, not quotas. Their purpose is to make visible whose voices your coverage centres, whether contributors are paid consistently, and whether people are represented fairly - so you can spot blind spots and act on them. Editorial relevance and newsworthiness always come first. A tracker showing an imbalance is a prompt to widen your contact book and check your framing, not a rule that forces a particular source into a story.
Should I record the ethnicity or religion of my sources?
Be careful. Information about someone's race, religion, health, or sexual orientation is special category data under UK GDPR, and recording it carries data-protection obligations. Only log what a source has volunteered or what is already public, record it for a clear and limited purpose, never guess, and keep the data secure and minimal. Many newsrooms track broad, observable categories at an aggregate level rather than holding sensitive personal records. If in doubt, consult your data-protection lead or the ICO.
How do I choose inclusive language when terms are contested?
Start with the person: wherever practical, ask how they wish to be described - their name, pronouns, and identity terms - and respect it. Where you cannot ask, follow how a community or reputable specialist organisation describes itself, and consult your house style. Prefer precise, accurate terms over euphemism, and drop characteristics that are not relevant to the story. Language evolves, so review your inclusive-language reference periodically rather than treating any word list as permanent.
Is content accessibility a legal duty for journalists?
Accessibility sits within the broad framework of the Equality Act 2010, which concerns not discriminating against and making reasonable adjustments for disabled people; separate accessibility regulations apply specifically to public-sector websites. Most news organisations are not public-sector bodies, but accessible content is both good practice and a way to reach a wider audience. The accessibility spot-check in this pack covers the basics journalists control - alt text, captions, transcripts, heading structure, and plain language - and is not a substitute for a formal audit involving your product team and disabled users.
Related packs
Editorial Governance & House Style Pack
Governance framework, house style starter, and standards documentation for newsrooms.
Editor Standards Pack
Corrections, right of reply, AI disclosure, and an ethics decision flowchart for editors.
Social Media Policy Pack
Newsroom social media policy, verification checklist, and personal-account guidance.