Response to the Press Recognition Panel Call for Information on the Annual Report on the Recognition System 2019 Introduction 1. The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) was established under the Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press (‘the Charter’) to ‘carry on activities relating to the recognition of Regulators’. 2. Among other things, the PRP is responsible for ‘reporting on any success or failure of the recognition system’. 3. Accordingly, on 18 September 2019, the PRP issued a call for information ‘to gather views on the extent to which the recognition system has succeeded in its aims.’ This call for information poses the following questions: • To what extent does the new system of genuinely independent and effective system of self-regulation recommended by Leveson exist today? • Is the system of self-regulation that exists today more or less independent and effective system than three years ago? What evidence do you have to support your view? • How much confidence can the public have in the systems that are currently in place to protect it from potential harm caused by the press and news publishers? • How satisfied are you with the mechanisms and processes that are in place to challenge misinformation and mistruths in the press? 4. This paper constitutes IMPRESS’s response to this call for information. 5. In the paper, we first set out the factual background to our response. We then provide answers to the PRP’s questions. IMPRESS Response to PRP Call for Information October 2019 Page 1 of 12 6. We hope this response encourages productive dialogue with the PRP and other relevant stakeholders, including representatives of the news publishing industry, regulators, academics, civil society organisations and policymakers. Part One: Factual background Government policy towards the news publishing industry 7. The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press (‘the Charter’) was designed to give effect to recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson following his Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press (‘the Leveson Inquiry’). 8. The recitals to the Charter show that its aims are aligned with the Terms of Reference of the Leveson Inquiry, which was tasked with recommending: ‘a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media, and its independence, including from Government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards’. 9. In this paper we assess ‘the extent to which the recognition system has succeeded in its aims’ by reference to these aims of: • Supporting the integrity and freedom of the press; • Supporting the plurality of the media; • Supporting the independence of the media, including from Government; and • Encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards. 10. The recognition system was intended to form part of a wider framework for press regulation (‘the post-Leveson framework’) that included the legal incentives set out in sections 34-42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. These incentives are designed to protect publishers from awards of exemplary damages and adverse costs orders in libel and privacy actions, so long as they subscribe to a recognised regulator, and to expose publishers to the risk of exemplary damages and adverse costs orders if they do not subscribe to a recognised regulator. 11. The exemplary damages provisions were commenced in the normal way upon enactment of the legislation, but the Government chose not to commence section 40 of the Act (‘s40’), which sets out the costs provisions. IMPRESS Response to PRP Call for Information October 2019 Page 2 of 12 12. On 1 March 2018, the Government announced its intention to repeal s40 and cancelled Part Two of the Leveson Inquiry. At the same time, the then Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Rt. Hon Matt Hancock MP, announced a range of related policy initiatives: ‘Action is needed. Not based on what might have been needed years ago – but action now to address today’s problems. Our new Digital Charter sets out the overarching programme of work to agree norms and rules for the online world and put them into practice. Under the Digital Charter, our Internet Safety Strategy is looking at online behaviour and we will firmly tackle the problems of online abuse. And our review into the sustainability of high-quality journalism will address concerns about the impact of the Internet on our news and media.’1 13. The Secretary of State suggested that the aims of these initiatives were comparable to the aims of the recognition system: ‘At national and local levels, a press that can hold the powerful to account remains an essential component of our democracy. Britain needs high-quality journalism to thrive in the new digital world. We seek a press – a media – that is robust, and independently regulated. That reports without fear or favour. The steps I have set out today will help give Britain a vibrant, independent and free press that holds the powerful to account and rises to the challenges of our times.’ 14. A group of claimants brought an unsuccessful challenge to the lawfulness of the government’s decision to cancel Part Two of the Leveson Inquiry. The Government released a statement on judgement on 28 November 2018, stating that: ‘The media landscape has changed significantly in the six years since the Leveson Inquiry was first published and we believe that the steps we have taken mean that continuing with Part 2 is no longer appropriate, proportionate, or in the public interest.’ 15. The policy initiatives outlined in Matt Hancock’s statement subsequently took shape as the Cairncross Review: A sustainable future for journalism (‘the Cairncross Review’), published in February 2019, and the Online Harms White Paper (‘the White Paper’), published in April 2019. 16. The Cairncross Review found that there has been a market failure in the provision of public interest news and recommended public intervention to address 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leveson-consultation-response IMPRESS Response to PRP Call for Information October 2019 Page 3 of 12 this. In particular, the Review recommended subsidies to support local journalism and digital innovation in news publishing. 17. The White Paper set out proposals for a new regulatory framework for social media platforms that would address harms such as ‘misinformation’ and ‘abuse of public figures’. In response to concerns that this framework would also affect the online services offered by news publishers, the then Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Rt. Hon Jeremy Wright MP, wrote to the Society of Editors, copying IMPRESS, on 10 April, stating: ‘where these services are already well regulated, as IPSO and IMPRESS do regarding their members’ moderated comment sections, we will not duplicate those efforts.’ 18. The Government did not explain: • How it assessed whether IMPRESS’s and IPSO’s members’ moderated comment sections were well regulated, or regulated at all; • What its plans were for comments sections on the websites of news publishers more generally; or • How it was justified in not including the content of news publishers regulated by IPSO or IMPRESS in the regulation of third-party platforms where that content appeared. 19. The Government has not yet formally responded to either the Cairncross Review or its consultation on the White Paper. 20. Meanwhile, the Government has continued to provide a range of direct and indirect subsidies to parts of the news publishing industry. Printed news publications are zero-rated for Value Added Tax (VAT), whilst local authorities are obliged to advertise with selected local newspapers. Taken together, the annual value of these subsidies has been calculated at £250m.2 21. In the course of reviewing the BBC Charter, the Government encouraged the BBC to enter into partnership with the News Media Association (NMA) to invest £8m of licence fee funds per year into a Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS). The lion’s share of LDRS contracts (61 out of 68) were subsequently awarded to newspapers owned by Reach, Newsquest and JPI, three of the 2 https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/why-local-websites-deserve-a-share-of-governments-250m-plus- annual-subsidy-for-local-news/ IMPRESS Response to PRP Call for Information October 2019 Page 4 of 12 largest publishing companies in the UK, all of which are members of IPSO (see below), and which have a combined turnover of more than £1bn.3 22. In 2018, the Government updated data protection law to reflect the requirements of the European Union General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The Data Protection Act 2018 includes a qualified exemption for journalists who follow any of a number of listed journalism codes. The listed codes include the Editors’ Code of Practice, which is used by IPSO. Despite multiple requests by IMPRESS and a cross-party group of parliamentarians, the Act does not list the IMPRESS Standards Code, either by name or as the code of a recognised regulator. The state of the news publishing industry 23. At a conservative estimate, we believe that there are at least 500 news publishing companies in the UK. These companies are responsible for a wide range of publications, including general interest newspapers and magazines as well as specialist titles. They include investigative journalism non-profits, hyperlocals, political media and publications aimed at particular communities of interest. 24. Whilst digital technology has enabled new players to enter the news market, it has also created problems for audiences, who increasingly encounter news via social media platforms and search engines, and who are unsure, as a result, whether to trust a particular news site. 25. Ofcom’s latest research shows that audiences are increasingly looking for trust indicators when they encounter news online: ‘Although close to one in five social media users say they would not tend to check the truthfulness of news articles, this is less likely than in 2017 (23%).