UK Politics

The Press Recognition Panel (PRP), an independent body which oversees the only official independent press regulator Impress (as opposed to the larger self-regulator Ipso), has just published its ninth annual report on the effectiveness of the press regulation system set up in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry into misconduct in the press.

It currently does not compel publishers to join the state-backed regulator on misconduct — but the so-called Section 40 axed last year would have enabled that to happen.

The report argues that while recent high-profile legal cases brought by celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Prince Harry have led to settlements and substantial payouts, the vast majority of victims of press abuse cannot afford to pursue justice and redress in the face of powerful and influential media owners. A system of independent — but enforceable — regulation would allow low-cost redress for those victims, according to the PRP.

Examples of press intrusion and harm highlighted in the report include CCTV footage of a fatal hit and run being posted on a news publisher’s website for “clickbait”, journalists informing siblings on the doorstep of the death of their brother in a terrorist attack, and news outlets falsely accusing people of murder.

“No other industry, including broadcast journalism, enjoys the privileges and protections that ‘news publishers’ enjoy in law,” the authors argue, adding: “However, these protections and privileges are not balanced by responsibility or accountability.”

News publishers are not required to participate in independent press self-regulation, which has resulted in a fractured and incoherent system.
[…]
But all the major national titles have instead opted to set up their own complaints processes or join the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which does not meet the criteria for an independent regulator — in part as it is dominated by the newspaper editors it is meant to oversee.

According to the analysis, between 2018 and 2022, IPSO investigated just 3.82% and upheld 0.56% of the eligible complaints it received, far lower than the proportion of cases upheld by Impress.

The PRP’s report notes that news publishers often cite concerns around the impact of regulation on freedom of the press as one of their reasons for not joining a regulator which meets the criteria for independence.

But the PRP argues that members of Impress undertake “high-quality investigative journalism without any constraint from the regulator” — as long as they can justify their actions as being in the public interest.

Broadcasters also undertake high-quality, award-winning investigative journalism despite being subject to statutory regulation under Ofcom.