Journalist and publication research

Before approaching a newsroom, check four things: whether the publication serves the people who need the information, who covers the subject now, what recent reporting has established, and which contact route the outlet provides. Record why you propose the approach.

Confirm the publication is a plausible home

Start with the reader question the material answers. Check the outlet’s geographic focus, relevant section, format and current submission guidance.

Note where the story could fit and any stated exclusion. If the information concerns one local service, the outlet’s national reach does not make the underlying evidence national.

Check the publication’s standards and accountability

The Australian Press Council’s Statements of Principles bind publications subject to its jurisdiction. When assessing a publication, check whether recent reporting distinguishes factual material from opinion and presents facts with reasonable fairness and balance. These are explicit standards, not guarantees that every article meets them.

Look at how the publication handles significant inaccuracies. The Council’s principles call for a correction or other adequate remedial action. A visible correction or clarification can show how the outlet addresses mistakes.

For reporting that refers adversely to a person, the Council’s principles provide for a fair opportunity to reply where reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of its fairness principle. They also call for conflicts of interest to be avoided or adequately disclosed.

If the proposed subject involves personal information, consider the Council’s privacy principles as well. They say journalists should not unduly intrude on individuals’ privacy and should respect the dignity and sensitivity of people encountered while gathering news. The general principles also address harm and deceptive or unfair methods.

Check the publication’s relationship to the Council before treating those standards as binding on it. The Council considers complaints about print and digital material from constituent bodies, including most Australian newspapers and magazines and some leading digital-only publishers. It may consider other publishers, but they are not legally obliged to cooperate or publish an adjudication.

The Council treats complaints as being against the publication, not an individual journalist or editor. That distinction is a reason to research both the person’s reporting and the outlet’s practices. A byline can help establish subject relevance, while the publication is responsible for the standards applying to its material.

Key standards from the Australian Press Council

Consider the value of local reporting

A publication’s value may lie in staying with a community after a major event, rather than reaching the largest possible audience. In a 2026 commentary, Susan Templeman MP described local papers’ continuing coverage of the aftermath of the 2013 Winmalee bushfires for weeks, months and years as the community recovered.

Templeman also described local papers as covering community groups, small businesses, sporting achievements, local issues and community leaders. When researching a regional or suburban outlet, inspect its coverage for this kind of ongoing community reporting as well as prominent breaking news.

Use that reporting history to assess whether the publication’s readers have a distinct local context for the subject.

Find the person responsible for the subject

Open relevant articles and inspect their bylines, dates and subjects. Check the person’s current role through the publication’s profile or contact information where available.

A broad label such as ‘technology’ may hide a much narrower reporting remit. One related article suggests a candidate; it does not establish an enduring beat.

Note whether the person reports news, edits a section or contributes occasionally. If no current individual match can be confirmed, consider a published desk or newsroom route. Leave an uncertain role or address marked as uncertain.

Check what readers already know

Read the closest recent coverage beyond its headline. Record its central question, evidence and material limits.

Compare those with the point you propose to add: a confirmed development, a relevant record or an answer the earlier reporting left open. If the article already establishes the same point, adding a company name does not create a useful update.

Verify the route and make the decision

Prefer a contact route currently supplied by the publication. Note its source and verification date, alongside the outlet, person or desk, relevant work and reason for the match. Keep a candidate record separate from messages actually sent.

A verified address shows where a message could go; it does not by itself settle whether a particular message should be sent.

Proceed when the outlet, current remit, proposed addition and contact route all have a supportable answer. Revise a weak or overly broad point. Hold a contact whose role or route remains uncertain, and stop where the outlet excludes the material or recent coverage leaves nothing useful to add.