Oh I think if I was doorstepped by a journalist he would come off worse.
In the BBC guidelines, it is emphasised that it can be a risky tactic and dangerous for the journalist , so a thorough risk assessment must be made.
This activity can present a significant safety risk, especially if the subject is contentious and/or the target interviewee confrontational. It may provoke an aggressive or even a violent response, not only from the target but also from their family, friends and colleagues. The target may try to avoid being interviewed by either taking refuge or escaping on foot or by vehicle, which may create a collateral damage risk.
Also, tensions can be heightened if there is a media scrum to be first to get an interview.
What Can Go Wrong?
Physical attack to crew aiming to injure persons or damage camera equipment.
Injury from weapons (firearms. knives), projectiles (bricks), clubs, high pressure hose pipes etc.
Injury from animals such as dogs, horses etc.
Injury from vehicles caused by erratic and/or fast driving.
Injuries from entanglement with other crews or others at the location.
Getting cornered or unable to escape from threatening situations.
Verbal threats or abuse.
I don't find it particularly surprising that Brunt and his crew chose to track down a single, elderly lady living alone.
This is from Offcom guidelines ;
"
Doorstepping for factual programmes should not take place unless a request for an interview has been refused, or it has not been possible to request an interview"
Brunt had a means of contacting Brenda through twitter, had he tried to arrange an interview? It doesn't look like it. He and his employer tried to argue it was in 'the public interest' but who's interest did outing someone for expressing lawful opinions serve? Can anyone find any examples of Brunt doorstepping any private individual in his long career?
Some might argue that it would be in the public interest to confront some of the last people to see Madeleine over police statements made about them allegedly being involved in child abuse. Or maybe someone in the Leicestershire police could be confronted about not passing that statement on immediately to the officers in an ongoing missing child case that has cost the taxpayer 12 million.
Questions about disturbing statements not passed on really would tick the boxes of 'public interest'.
