1. Reduced visibility of important investigations
Even when articles remain online, delisting from search engines can make investigations much more difficult for citizens, researchers, employers, and other journalists to locate.
The practical result may be reduced accountability despite the reporting remaining legally published.
2. Increased legal pressure on newsrooms
Journalists increasingly receive requests invoking GDPR rights to:
- Remove names
- Delete photographs
- Anonymize archives
- Edit previously accurate reporting
- Remove search engine visibility
Handling these requests often requires legal review, increasing costs and administrative burdens for independent news organizations.
3. Challenges for historical archives
News archives serve as part of society’s historical record.
Removing names or altering older investigations can affect future research, accountability reporting, and the ability to understand past events.
Many press freedom organizations argue that journalistic archives deserve particularly strong protection because they document matters of historical significance.
4. Potential misuse by powerful individuals
Privacy rights are essential for protecting ordinary citizens.
However, press freedom advocates have warned that some politically exposed persons, business leaders, or individuals accused of misconduct may attempt to use privacy claims to reduce public scrutiny of accurate reporting.
This is why regulators evaluate whether information continues to serve a legitimate public interest rather than granting every request automatically.
Best practices for investigative journalists
Journalists cannot prevent RTBF requests, but careful reporting strengthens the public-interest justification for maintaining published investigations.
Document the public interest
Editors should clearly record why publishing personal information was necessary.
Ask:
- Does identifying this individual contribute to accountability?
- Is the information essential to understanding the story?
- Could the investigation be understood without naming the individual?
Verify everything
Accurate reporting is the strongest defense.
Maintain documentation showing:
- Source verification
- Editorial review
- Fact-checking
- Evidence supporting every allegation
Avoid unnecessary personal data
Not every personal detail improves public understanding.
Minimizing unnecessary personal information reduces legal risk while respecting privacy.
Preserve editorial records
Keep notes explaining:
- Why names were included
- Why publication served the public interest
- The proportionality assessment
- Corrections made after publication
These records may become important if legal challenges arise years later.
Understand national law
Although the GDPR applies across the European Union, each member state implements journalistic exemptions differently.
Cross-border investigative collaborations should therefore consider the legal frameworks of all participating countries.
The future of investigative reporting
As digital archives continue expanding, requests to remove or limit access to personal information are likely to increase.
The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has identified the right to erasure as one of the GDPR rights most frequently exercised by individuals, prompting coordinated enforcement efforts across Europe.
For journalists, the challenge is not choosing between privacy and press freedom. Responsible reporting requires protecting both.
Investigative journalism serves democracy by exposing wrongdoing, while privacy laws protect individuals from unnecessary or disproportionate harm. The most resilient legal systems recognize that these rights should be balanced rather than viewed as mutually exclusive.
Final thoughts
The Right to Be Forgotten reflects society’s legitimate interest in protecting personal privacy in the digital age. Yet investigative journalism also plays an essential democratic role by preserving an accurate public record of events that shape society.
When truthful reporting concerns corruption, abuse of power, public safety, or other matters of public interest, restricting access to that information may weaken accountability and informed public debate.
For journalists, understanding the legal framework behind the Right to Be Forgotten is no longer optional. It is an increasingly important part of responsible investigative reporting, editorial decision-making, and defending the public’s right to know.
Further Reading
- European Commission. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 17 – Right to Erasure.
- European Data Protection Board (EDPB). Guidelines 5/2019 on the Right to Be Forgotten in Search Engine Cases.
- European Data Protection Board. Coordinated Enforcement Action on the Right to Erasure (2026).
- Court of Justice of the European Union. Google Spain SL v AEPD and Mario Costeja González (Case C-131/12).
- UNESCO. Journalism, Privacy and Data Protection (guidance on balancing privacy and freedom of expression).
- Council of Europe. Freedom of Expression and the Right to Respect for Private Life.