A public dispute over the ethics of local journalism has developed into a wider debate about freedom of expression, reporting on death and grief, and whether journalists should be prepared to face the same scrutiny they routinely apply to others.
The row followed criticism of reporting associated with Wiltshire 999s. A woman publicly questioned what she regarded as the ethics, compassion and editorial judgement behind a piece of local reporting.
A subsequent Facebook post by journalist Daniel Jae Webb did not name the woman but referred to an “ill-informed post by a woman” and described critics as “haters”.
The post stated: “All publicity is good publicity. Especially in this job,” and said every mention of him and his brand attracted “new eyeballs”.
It also claimed Wiltshire 999s had received seven million Facebook views the previous day, adding: “Despite the haters, I won’t stop. I’m proud to provide people with public interest news, the stuff that matters, the stories that must be told.”
Criticism focused on death, grief and journalistic judgement
The dispute raises an established ethical issue within journalism: the additional sensitivity expected when reporting on death, bereavement and people experiencing grief or shock.
The Editors’ Code of Practice contains a specific provision covering this area. Clause 4 states that in cases involving personal grief or shock, journalistic enquiries and approaches should be conducted with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. The provision does not prevent the reporting of legal proceedings. (IPSO)
IPSO’s specific guidance on reporting deaths also recognises that a death can legitimately be a matter of public interest and that journalists are entitled to report it once immediate family members are aware. However, it says journalists should show sensitivity to those experiencing grief or shock and give appropriate consideration to the wishes and needs of bereaved people. (IPSO)
The regulator has dealt with complaints specifically concerning the treatment of bereaved families. In one 2025 case involving the Daily Mail website, IPSO upheld complaints under privacy and intrusion into grief or shock after finding aspects of a reporter’s approach to a bereaved family were neither sufficiently sympathetic nor discreet. (IPSO)
That does not establish that any Code breach occurred in the Wiltshire dispute. Whether the reporting at the centre of this disagreement breached any regulatory standard would depend on the precise article, the circumstances surrounding its publication and, where relevant, who was directly affected.
‘Nobody should be frightened into silence’
The woman who made the original criticism said she believed she was the person being described as “ill informed”, although she acknowledged that she had not been named.
She challenged the journalist to identify any factual error in what she had written and stressed that her original post represented her opinion about editorial ethics and judgement.
She wrote: “If I have made a factual statement that is wrong, tell me what it is, and I will correct it. But disagreeing with my opinion does not make it defamatory and calling someone’s professional judgement into question does not automatically make that person ill-informed.”
She said hundreds of people had responded to her original comments or expressed similar concerns.
The woman also said she had subsequently heard from people who claimed they had previously received legal correspondence after criticising the journalist, including demands concerning posts, apologies and compensation.
Those accounts have not been independently verified, and the woman herself emphasised that they were other people’s reported experiences rather than facts she was asking the public to accept without evidence.
‘Journalism scrutinises other people every single day’
The woman said her concerns had now expanded beyond the original article into a question about the relationship between a media organisation and the community it reports on.
“Someone operating a media platform with enormous local reach should, in my opinion, expect scrutiny,” she wrote.
“Journalism scrutinises other people every single day. Surely those publishing that journalism must also be prepared to have their own editorial decisions questioned.”
She also explicitly called on people not to abuse or harass the journalist, make unsupported allegations or engage in a pile-on.
But she added: “Equally, nobody should be frightened into silence.”
IPSO’s rules distinguish between factual accuracy and more personal complaints about matters such as privacy, harassment, and grief. Anyone can raise certain significant accuracy concerns, while complaints concerning intrusion into grief or shock will generally need to come from somebody directly affected or their authorised representative. (IPSO)
The disagreement therefore leaves two distinct questions: what journalists are legally and ethically entitled to report about matters of public interest, and whether the manner in which sensitive stories involving death and bereavement are reported meets the standards expected by the people and communities being covered.
Webb claimed Wiltshire 999s had recorded seven million Facebook views the previous day, describing it as one of the platform’s biggest-ever days. The figure could not be independently verified from publicly available Facebook data.
