Journalism and legal risk: In conversation with Josh Pizzuto-Pomaco

In an era shaped by rapid digital publication, public scrutiny and increasingly contested narratives, the relationship between journalism and the law has become more intertwined than ever.

Journalists operate within a legal framework that both protects and constrains their work, navigating issues ranging from defamation and contempt of court to privacy, public-interest reporting and freedom of information. At the same time, legal professionals are increasingly aware of the role media coverage plays in shaping public understanding of institutions, accountability and justice itself.

Modern democracies have engineered a peculiar arrangement where journalists investigate power, lawyers regulate the boundaries of disclosure, and both are accused daily of either saying too much or not enough. 

Josh Pizzuto-Pomaco, Edinburgh correspondent for The Herald, works at the centre of many of these tensions. Originally from New Jersey in the US and now based in Scotland, his reporting focuses on local government, public policy, investigative journalism and community campaigns across the capital. His work spans court reporting, public-interest investigations and wider questions around accountability and transparency in public life.

Speaking to Ahsan Mustafa, Josh reflects on the judgement calls that shape modern reporting, the legal risks journalists increasingly face, the realities of court and public-interest reporting, and the pressures created by a fast-moving digital media environment. He also discusses defamation law, the growing concern around strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and the importance of maintaining both accuracy and fairness when reporting on contentious issues.

For legal professionals, the discussion offers insight into how journalists approach evidence, verification, public accountability and legal risk. It also highlights the extent to which law and journalism, although operating from different institutional perspectives, ultimately depend on many of the same principles: scrutiny, accuracy, procedural fairness and public trust. Principles that sound reassuringly stable until you watch them tested under deadline pressure, political tension and the threat of litigation.

You’ve been shortlisted for Young Journalist of the Year at the Scottish Press Awards. What kind of work do you think led to that recognition?

The awards ceremony took place on 21 May 2026 at the Hilton Doubletree, and this is actually the second time I’ve been shortlisted, which is a real honour.

For the submission, I included three pieces that reflected the kind of journalism I care most about. One was an interview with Kenny MacAskill, the former Justice Secretary. Another focused on freedom of information requests into waiting times for ADHD and autism assessments for children across Scotland. In some health boards, children were waiting hundreds of days for assessments, which was placing enormous strain on families.

The third piece looked at a grassroots campaign in Aberdeen to keep a local park in community ownership. That story involved court appearances, questions around inequality and a wider conversation about who public spaces really belong to.

What tends to draw you to a story in the first place?

There has to be a sense of impact. I’m always asking who is being affected and whether there’s some wider social issue that deserves attention. I genuinely believe journalism is a force for public good and that journalists can play a role in provoking change.

One of my editors used the acronym ‘TRUE’ for stories: truthful, relevant, unique and engaging. That stuck with me. Journalism only works if people trust it, so I think journalists have a responsibility to hold themselves to high standards and produce work that is both rigorous and meaningful.

How do you decide what’s worth pursuing and what isn’t?

A lot of it comes down to instinct, but instinct has to be backed by evidence. You can hear a dramatic anecdote, but the key question is always whether it can be verified. Can the facts be proven? Can the sources be corroborated?

For me, journalism is about shining a light into places that otherwise go unexamined, but that only works if the reporting is solid.

Journalism involves constant judgement calls. How do you decide when a story is ready to publish?

It depends entirely on the nature of the story. If it’s relatively low stakes and the facts are straightforward, the threshold is naturally lower. If a new cafe is opening or there has been a road traffic incident, for example, there’s not much legal or factual complexity there.

But if you’re dealing with contested allegations or investigative reporting, there’s a much more rigorous process. Editors, sub-editors and sometimes external legal counsel all become involved. I worked on a story involving substandard concrete where we had to be extremely careful about what had been said in Parliament and how a company was represented.

How do you handle uncertainty when facts are still developing?

Corroboration becomes crucial. If multiple sources are involved, they need to be independent from one another. You also look for documentary or digital evidence that can verify claims. The digital evidence itself has to be verified for authenticity.

 Giving someone a right of reply is another important part of the process. It’s ethically necessary, but it also tells you something about the strength of the story. Sometimes a response can reveal how seriously the allegations are being taken or whether the core facts are genuinely disputed.

Have you ever held back a story despite pressure to publish?

Stories have to be cross-checked and verified and they cannot be rushed. Editors tend to be more cautious than journalists, particularly at a broadsheet publication like The Herald. Our model is based far more on subscriptions than clicks, so there’s a real emphasis on quality, analysis and accuracy rather than simply publishing quickly.

Some areas, such as courts or public institutions, can be difficult to report on clearly. How do you approach those stories?

The most important thing is to slow down and understand the rules before you start writing. Court reporting in particular requires real caution. You need to know what can and cannot be published, especially around contempt of court and avoiding anything that could prejudice proceedings.

Compared to the US, contempt laws in Scotland and the wider UK are much stricter. When covering criminal proceedings, we generally stick very closely to what is said in court and avoid introducing unnecessary background or context that could influence a jury.

How do you balance accuracy with making something understandable for a general audience?

Legal or institutional jargon can be difficult to translate. I covered a number of stories involving the Ethical Standards Commissioner and local councillors, where there were complicated questions around free speech and conduct rules.

The first step is making sure I properly understand the issue myself. Once you’ve done that, the challenge becomes explaining it clearly without oversimplifying it. I revise constantly while writing because clarity really matters.

Do you think nuance is sometimes lost when complex issues are reported?

Definitely. Modern media can drift towards outrage because outrage attracts attention. Social media especially rewards reaction rather than understanding.

But if a story involves competing viewpoints or genuinely complicated issues, journalists have a responsibility to include that context. Otherwise the reporting becomes misleading or irresponsible. I think there’s still a real appetite for serious, analytical journalism, and news organisations should lean into that rather than pure clickbait.

How present is defamation risk in your day-to-day decision-making?

It’s always there in the background, although the level of concern depends on the story. If you’re investigating public officials or large organisations, the legal risks naturally become more significant.

At the same time, defamation law can sometimes be used aggressively, so you have to balance caution with the public interest. I rely heavily on editors and legal advice in those situations.

Do you ever find yourself self-censoring because of legal risk?

Journalists do constantly weigh risk against public interest. There are situations where caution is necessary, but fear of legal action can’t become the overriding factor. Sometimes the public interest in publishing is simply too important.

Has the threat of legal action ever changed how you approached a story?

Not directly, but it absolutely affects how carefully you build a case. FOI [freedom of information] material is particularly valuable because it gives you documentary evidence from public authorities themselves.

I worked on a story about collusion between bus companies and Aberdeen City Council around bus gate enforcement. Without the FOI evidence showing relevant communication between the parties, the reporting would have been far more vulnerable to legal challenge.

There’s increasing discussion around SLAPPs. Do you think they’re a genuine concern for journalists in Scotland and the UK?

Yes, particularly for smaller outlets and independent journalists. Large organisations have legal departments and financial resources that smaller publications simply don’t.

A friend of mine in student journalism at St Andrews told me about a case involving threats of legal action from a US-based organisation. Even when those threats never materialise into court proceedings, they can still intimidate journalists or discourage reporting. That’s why anti-SLAPP protections matter.

What is your view on the current defamation framework?

People absolutely deserve protection from false allegations, but there should also be a high threshold for litigation in public-interest journalism. My concern is less about the wording of the law itself and more about unequal resources. Wealthy individuals or organisations are far better positioned to pursue legal action than individual journalists are.

How do you ensure people are represented fairly in your reporting?

Giving people a proper right of reply is essential. I also try to separate my personal views from the reporting itself. Every journalist has beliefs and perspectives, but facts have to come first. Even in contentious stories, it’s important not to demonise people unnecessarily. Public discourse is already toxic enough.

Is true objectivity realistic?

I believe objective truth exists and journalists should pursue it as honestly as possible. At the same time, transparency matters. Reporters should be open about how stories are sourced and framed.

The goal should always be accurate, fair and meaningful reporting rather than trying to force a narrative.

Have you ever reflected on a piece and felt it didn’t fully capture reality?

Constantly, especially early in my career. Sometimes you realise afterwards that there was another perspective you could have explored or more context that would have strengthened the story. But journalism can never be perfect. At some point you have to publish. The important thing is being willing to reflect, improve and, when necessary, follow up on earlier reporting.

How much does time pressure affect reporting?

It depends on the role. On live news shifts, you might be expected to publish six or seven stories in a day, often on fast-moving but relatively straightforward topics. Investigative or reporting roles are different. Those stories take longer because the stakes are higher and the reporting is more complex.

Does the current media landscape reward speed over depth?

In many ways, yes. Digital publishing and search algorithms push news organisations towards constant speed and visibility. That said, I think publications like The Herald still place genuine value on depth and and accuracy. The challenge is being fast without sacrificing standards.

When dealing with lawyers or public bodies, what tends to make communication easier?

Professionalism and mutual respect. Everyone is ultimately trying to do their job properly. Clear communication makes a huge difference.

Do you think there’s a gap in understanding between journalists and other professions?

Sometimes there are stereotypes on all sides. Journalists can caricature lawyers or PR professionals, and the same happens in reverse. In reality, most productive working relationships come from treating people as individuals rather than assumptions about their profession.

To what extent does journalism shape public understanding of complex systems?

I think it’s hugely important. Most people are not going to read government reports or analyse public data and statistics themselves or even know where to find these. Journalists play a key role in bringing important information into public view and in decoding that information. Without that scrutiny, many issues simply wouldn’t enter the public consciousness.

Is there a responsibility to educate as well as report?

To some extent, yes. If journalism serves the public good, then part of that role involves helping people understand the world around them. Good reporting should encourage curiosity, analysis and informed discussion.

How has digital media changed the way you work?

News is now overwhelmingly consumed online, often on smartphones rather than in print. That changes presentation and style, even if the core principles remain the same. The challenge is making stories engaging and accessible without compromising accuracy.

Does social media help or hinder responsible journalism?

Both. It can encourage sensationalism and reactive coverage, but it also gives journalists direct access to communities, sources and audiences. Used properly, it can strengthen reporting rather than weaken it.

What has been the most difficult type of story to cover?

Stories involving suffering or vulnerable people are always the hardest. Even where the facts are clear, the language has to be handled carefully and responsibly. Words matter, and careless reporting can genuinely harm people.

What have you learned about your own decision-making through journalism?

I’ve learned that good decision-making is collaborative. Journalism works best when reporters, editors and colleagues challenge each other constructively. You also must stay open to criticism and constantly improve.

What kind of journalist do you hope to become?

I want to be known for journalism that has real impact, particularly on issues affecting marginalised or overlooked people. For me, journalism should be rooted in truth, humility and public service. The goal is ultimately to hold power accountable and help build a better society. I want to bring about a better, fairer society and inspire other people to do the same.

What does good journalism look like in practice?

Good journalism is fundamentally people-focused. It involves collaboration behind the scenes, rigorous reporting and genuine engagement with the communities you’re covering.

These days, stories are told via video and social media content as well as the printed word, so journalism also has to keep up with technology.

But most importantly, it should make people care. Apathy is one of the worst outcomes for public life. Journalism should inform people, challenge them and, where possible, contribute to meaningful change.

Interview by Ahsan Mustafa, senior associate at Aberdein Considine LLP.