One of the clearest takeaways from the AP Forward safety webinar was this: risk is deeply personal. Two journalists covering the same protest may face very different levels of threat — depending on their gender, race, visa status, or public visibility.
As Kerry Paterson noted:
“Safety isn’t universal. If your fallback plan is ‘run to the nearest police officer,’ that may not feel safe for all of your staff.”
Standardized protocols are necessary — but they aren’t sufficient. Newsrooms need to evolve beyond generic assessments and toward a risk strategy that’s intersectional and inclusive.
Chris Kemp of The Wall Street Journal stressed the need for journalist-led planning:
“Journalists know their risks. One call — ‘What are you most worried about?’ — can surface what the templates miss.”
Actionable recommendations
- Embed identity in risk planning. Build scenarios that account for how threats differ across staff profiles.
- Involve participants. Risk assessments must be built with the journalist, not just for them.
- Keep it a live process. Risk documents should evolve as the assignment — and threat landscape — shifts.
Questions for leaders
- Are you factoring in identity-based risk when assigning high-exposure stories?
- Are your protocols built for the newsroom you have, not the one you used to be?
- Do staff feel comfortable pushing back on assignments that feel unsafe?
Related articles
