Protecting the fourth estate

In 1766, Sweden became the first country in the world to enshrine freedom of the press in its constitution through the Freedom of the Press Act^*1. The legislation formally recognized that journalism serves as an essential check on power. Over the next two and a half centuries, this principle spread around the world. However, according to Reporters Without Borders' 2025 World Press Freedom Index, only 35 of the 180 countries surveyed now offer "satisfactory" press freedom in practice^*2, down from 44 only a couple of years ago. Over the same period, the number of countries where the issue of press freedom was defined as “very serious” increased from 31 to 42. This deterioration isn't confined to authoritarian regimes.

In modern democracies, the suppression of journalism rarely takes the form of jackboots and locked printing presses. Instead, it arrives with a legal letter. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) have become a common tool used by wealthy individuals and corporations to suppress stories.

SLAPPS are not necessarily designed to win in court. They are intended to drain resources, exhaust journalists and their organizations, and ultimately prevent publication. Even when the reporting is solid and the facts are verified, the cost of defending against litigation can be catastrophic for smaller publishers and independent media.

The use of SLAPPS is increasing^*3. According to the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), 166 such lawsuits were initiated across Europe in 2023, following 161 in 2022. Since 2010, CASE has identified a total of 1,049 SLAPPs in Europe.

Recently, two investigative journalism companies were both pursuing a story in the public interest about an oligarch bringing money into the UK and investing in questionable technologies. The individual filed SLAPPs against both, demanding that they cease publication.

The case proceeded through the courts, with legal costs mounting. As the proceedings advanced, the judge began to recognize that this was not a legitimate defamation claim but an attempt to suppress a story. The oligarch backed down and the investigation was published.
Had those journalists lacked the support structure to see that case through to its conclusion, the story would not have been published. The public would never have known. Without professional indemnity insurance covering media liability risks, the legal costs would have forced the story’s abandonment. Constitutional protections guarantee the right to publish, but not the resources to defend that right when challenged.

When Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein pursued the Watergate story^*4 The White House denied their allegations, attacked their credibility, and pressured the newspaper's owner to halt publication. The legal and political risks were significant, the Post's television station licenses were under threat, and the potential for libel suits loomed over every new story. However, despite these threats, their reporting led to a president's resignation and altered how Americans viewed political accountability.

Decades later, in 2017, when Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey investigated Harvey Weinstein for The New York Times, and Ronan Farrow reported for The New Yorker, they broke through barriers reinforced by non-disclosure agreements and legal threats^*5. Before publication, their stories required months of investigation and fact-checking, and news organizations had to be willing to face potential litigation from one of Hollywood's most powerful figures.

The journalists in these examples succeeded because they had institutional backing, legal support, and the resources to see their investigations through despite pressure and threats. Insurance is a critical component of this institutional support. Media professional indemnity insurance covers "intangible risks", including defamation, privacy violations, copyright infringement, and breach of license. Insurance doesn't just provide financial protection after a claim is made; it provides the confidence to pursue the stories that need to be told.

The process works through careful risk assessment. When a production company or publisher approaches an insurer with a potentially controversial project, the evaluation involves close collaboration with specialist media lawyers. Detailed opinions are provided on the defamation risk and whether privacy concerns have been adequately addressed, and whether the journalism meets the standards of responsible reporting. Legal reviews help insurers assess whether the risk is manageable, but also strengthen the journalism itself, ensuring that stories are factual, that the right to reply has been given, and that claims can be defended if challenged. The framework reinforces the balance between press freedom and reputation protection, enabling investigation of powerful interests while maintaining the standards that distinguish legitimate journalism from reckless reporting.

The system isn't perfect, but it functions as an enabler. Major broadcasters won't air investigative content without insurance in place because they don't want defamation claims passed back to them. Production companies can't get insurance without demonstrating responsible journalism practices and obtaining legal clearance.

Two hundred and sixty years after Sweden's Freedom of the Press Act, the means of suppressing journalism have evolved, but the motivation remains. Powerful actors with resources at their disposal will always seek ways to silence stories they don't want told. The challenge is not to eliminate this pressure, but to build and maintain structures strong enough to withstand it.

Author:Ros Breese, Underwriting Director for Media, Film and Television, Tokio Marine HCC