No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour.
To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.
The last Government’s scrapping of plans for independent regulation of the press has increased the risk to the public from press intrusion and harm, according to a new report.
Before Parliament dissolved for the General Election last May, MPs — backed by Labour —rushed through a Media Bill, which abolished a key plank of the Leveson Inquiry’s recommendations on reforming the media.
The rule, which would have compelled newspaper publishers to join an independent form of press regulation or face large costs when sued, was in the statute book but never implemented. But newspaper bosses put pressure on the Government to abolish it altogether.
Labour has said it has no plans to reintroduce the measure, while also ruling out launching the second, never-initiated, plank of the Leveson Inquiry (dubbed Leveson II), into the press’ relationship with the police.
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.
Over 130 news publishers have joined Impress, the only press self-regulatory body that has demonstrated that it meets the criteria recommended by the Leveson Inquiry for independence, financial security, and effective complaints handling.
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.
The report concludes that unless the Government takes action to persuade news publishers to participate in the Recognition System, it will only be a matter of time until the next crisis in the industry, creating more victims and worsening public trust in the press.
The PRP is calling for the Government to “urgently review” the incentives for news publishers to participate in the official Recognition System to ensure the public is protected from press wrongdoing.
Kathryn Cearns OBE, Chair of the Press Recognition Panel, said: “It is a stain on the national conscience that despite years of campaigning by individual victims and groups and promises from politicians, powerful sections of the press remain able to destroy lives with virtual impunity.”
She added: “The historic injustices that led to the Leveson Inquiry have not been fully addressed. New cases continue to emerge, highlighting the damage still wrought by a largely unaccountable press pursuing headlines at the expense of ordinary people.”
The press panel chair also hit out at Conservative and the new Labour Government’s unwillingness to “take on the press” and put in place measures, including recommendations approved by Parliamentarians on both sides of the House, which would provide better protection for victims.
“Unless the Government takes action, it is only a matter of time before another press scandal emerges.”
The Lib Dems opposed repealing Section 40, with a spokesperson saying last Summer: “[The] incentives [to join the regulator] have been misrepresented as an unfair measure whose only effect would be to make publishers liable for court costs even when they win.
“In fact, they would have both protected ordinary people who are victims of press malpractice from powerful and wealthy news publishers; and provided parallel protection to publishers faced with threats by wealthy and powerful litigants.”
The party official added: “With those incentives now repealed, there is a danger of reverting to a state of unaccountability within an industry that has a long history of breaching agreed professional standards.”
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Labour peer Lord (Tom) Watson, who successfully sued News UK in January for commissioning illegal surveillance into him when he was a Labour minister, said of the repeal last May: “The public need to understand that, if we are going to concede to media barons — and let us not deny that this is what this represents — we need to be seen to do the right thing.
“You cannot make the case that this is anything other than a venal deal.”
The Press Recognition Panel was created as a result of the Leveson Inquiry into press standards. The Leveson Inquiry followed widespread concern about unlawful activities carried out by some sections of the media, such as phone hacking.
Lord Justice Leveson published his report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press in November 2012.
Read the PRP’s new report here.
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him…
