New Code Proposes 48-Hour No-Contact Rule for Bereaved Families, Less Focus on Attackers
In a deeply emotional appeal, survivors and families of terror attack victims across the UK are calling for tighter media regulations, demanding that news outlets adopt ethical reporting guidelines that prioritize dignity over deadlines.
With the 20th anniversary of the 7 July 2005 London bombings approaching, the campaign—led by the Survivors Against Terror group—is pushing for a formal change in how the media interacts with victims in the immediate aftermath of tragedies.
The proposed guidelines, supported by senior police figures, media professionals, and victims’ families, aim to protect survivors from harassment, reduce trauma, and prevent terrorists from gaining notoriety through the press.
A Call for Humanity in Headlines
What the New Media Code Proposes
The new reporting code recommends a 48-hour “no-contact” period, during which reporters should refrain from directly approaching bereaved families. Instead, the media is urged to coordinate with police liaison officers or use indirect channels to gather information.
Other key recommendations include:
-
No doorstep interviews outside victims’ homes
-
No glorification of terrorists through the publication of their manifestos, photos, or excessive name-dropping
-
A centralized coordination for interview requests to avoid multiple outlets contacting the same individual
-
Greater editorial scrutiny over content that may amplify extremist messaging
“Survivors have been through so much — they shouldn’t have to endure this too,” said Ella Young, a 7/7 bombing survivor who was harassed for interviews after nearly dying on a westbound Circle Line train.
“I Had to Change My Number”: Survivors Share Disturbing Experiences
Emotional trauma amplified by media pressure
Ella Young recalled being approached by a man while she was bleeding on a train platform, believing he was there to help her call her husband. In reality, he was a journalist.
“He didn’t try to help. He kept calling, emailing, pestering me. I wasn’t in a state to talk to anyone, but he didn’t care,” she said.
Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett, a victim of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, described how her younger daughter learned about her brother’s death from a reporter who knocked on their door.
“I can never take that back. But I can try to ensure it doesn’t happen to another family.”
These testimonies were echoed by Darryn Frost, the man who famously used a narwhal tusk to fight off a terrorist during the 2019 London Bridge attack, and others who have witnessed intrusive media behavior at their most vulnerable moments.
Media Ethics vs. Public Interest
Where do we draw the line?
While the current Editors’ Code of Practice, overseen by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), does advise journalists to approach grief with “sympathy and discretion,” survivors argue that it falls short of explicit protections.
IPSO’s rules prohibit harassment and intimidation but lack specificity—a loophole that can leave survivors subject to aggressive pursuit during breaking news events.
Some publications, including The Financial Times and The Guardian, already follow independent ethical codes, but these are voluntary and not legally enforceable.
“This is not about censorship,” said Brendan Cox, co-founder of Survivors Against Terror and widower of murdered MP Jo Cox. “It’s about raising the standards of reporting so we don’t inflict more pain on people who’ve already lost everything.”
Backing from Inside the Industry
Former editors and police endorse the code
Lloyd Embley, former Editor-in-Chief of The Mirror titles, said journalists must remain committed to public interest journalism, but also learn from past mistakes.
“This guidance helps journalists in the heat of the moment think about how we do our jobs—while respecting the pain of victims and not promoting the hatred terrorists seek to spread.”
Former counter-terrorism chief Neil Basu supported the guidance, stating that while media coverage of terrorism is essential for public awareness, it must not come at the cost of compassion.
Why This Matters Now
A post-terror society in need of reform
In the two decades since the 7/7 attacks, the UK has seen numerous high-profile terror incidents, including attacks in Manchester, Westminster, and London Bridge. Each brought intense media coverage—but also a recurring pattern of intrusion, sensationalism, and ethical grey areas.
Meanwhile, radical groups continue to leverage media attention to amplify fear, spread propaganda, and gain recognition. Experts warn that extensive coverage of terrorists’ identities and motives can unintentionally serve those very aims.
“Every time we plaster a terrorist’s face across front pages, we’re giving them what they want—attention,” said one media analyst who advised on the code.
The Path Forward
Striking a balance between empathy and information
The proposed guidelines, developed after consultations with journalists, legal experts, and victims’ families, aim to strike a sustainable middle ground. They do not seek to restrict press freedom but rather to encourage accountability and restraint.
“We’re not asking for a media blackout,” said Cox. “We’re asking for a human-first approach—something that should already be at the core of journalism.”
Survivors Against Terror hopes the new guidance will be adopted by major news organizations across the UK, possibly forming the basis for an updated Editors’ Code or inspiring binding industry-wide standards.
The Responsibility of the Press
Terrorism aims to divide, disrupt, and destroy. In the wake of such horrors, journalism plays a critical role in informing the public, holding authorities accountable, and telling the stories that matter.
But how those stories are told—and when—can either heal or harm.
With this new code, survivors are asking not for silence, but for respect. Not for censorship, but for compassionate professionalism.
