IPSO Analysis: Lord Faulks on the Future of News

Six years ago, the Cairncross Review examined the sustainability of UK journalism and made recommendations for its future. It pointed out the stark realities facing news providers. Today many of the issues the Review identified remain. Legislation, such as the Digital Markets Act, has begun to address some of the many structural inequities in the news landscape, and the government has promised, in particular, to take various steps to protect the future of local journalism. But the picture remains extremely challenging.

The Review discussed the importance of a media literacy strategy – something raised again in the recent Future of News report from the Lords’ Communications and Digital Committee. Last month, experts gave evidence to the committee, and described the proliferation of misinformation, purporting to be news. At IPSO, we have ourselves received press queries about so called “pink slime” websites which look like legitimate local news outlets but carry reports from overseas propaganda sites.

How can regulation help? IPSO’s first decade has strongly validated the effectiveness of the self-regulatory model. Two separate independent reviews by respected former civil servants have confirmed this, with the most recent concluding that IPSO has “influenced the industry for the better”.

Complaints data from 2020-23, shows most complaints we received within remit (those involving regulated titles and potential Code breaches) were resolved in the complainant’s favour. This may result in an upheld complaint, a mediated resolution, or an acceptable remedy being offered.

IPSO’s regulation is underpinned by contract. This self-regulatory model – as envisaged by Lord Justice Leveson in his report – means that publishers bear the cost of IPSO regulation. Taxpayers are not involved. Regulated publishers accept and abide by IPSO’s decision. They sometimes do so reluctantly but have always accepted IPSO’s decisions.

Although we are used to criticism from those who feel we are too soft on the industry we regulate, so, too, do we hear from publishers exercised about rulings that uphold complaints. Recently, a ruling centred on Clause 1 (Accuracy) and the relevance of a right to reply. It prompted several critical articles and comment pieces. The newspaper concerned was free to express its dissatisfaction, but it complied with the instruction to add a correction to the article in question – as it was required to do.

That is the nature of effective regulation – sometimes the ruling will favour the complainant and sometimes it will favour the publication. IPSO and its complaints committee are motivated not by criticism of whether we are too harsh on publications or too dismissive of complainants, but by ensuring complaints are assessed fairly against the Editors’ Code of Practice – the framework we use to regulate the press.

Those who handle the complaints, and the committee that determines the outcome, are all particularly concerned to balance the crucial importance of free speech with the need for publications to follow the industry’s own Code. I strongly believe that consuming news produced by an organisation regulated by IPSO provides a valuable assurance of reliability and is a vital aid to the production of good-quality news.

Below: Lord Faulks addresses the House of Lords during a debate on The Future of News