Have you ever wondered who decides when a newspaper should publish a correction – and whether that correction is enough?
Most readers only notice press regulation when something goes wrong: a correction appears, a story is amended, or a public apology makes headlines. What is less visible is who decides whether reporting has breached standards, whether a correction should be published, and what powers exist if a publication refuses.
A new report says Britain’s largest press complaints body may not be giving the public the protection many readers assume already exists – and polling suggests many people already share those concerns.
Recent YouGov polling cited by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) – the independent body created following the Leveson Inquiry to assess press regulators – found only around one in five people believed an ordinary member of the public would succeed in getting a false or misleading story corrected. By contrast, around two in three believed politicians or celebrities would be more likely to secure redress.
The same research found most people believed misleading reporting and failures to correct mistakes are becoming more common rather than less. Around four in five supported regulation of major news publishers, but only 3% supported an industry-run model.
Against that backdrop, the Press Recognition Panel has published a report concluding that the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) continues to operate more as an industry complaints body than an effective regulator.
What happens when readers complain?
When people think about press complaints, they often think about factual corrections. But complaints can also involve privacy, reporting around bereavement, children, harassment or intrusion into grief.
Readers usually see the outcome – perhaps a correction, clarification or adjudication – but rarely see the process behind it.
The PRP says its review of recent cases suggests people who feel harmed by reporting are often left carrying most of the burden themselves – making complaints, gathering evidence and pursuing outcomes through systems with limited powers to secure meaningful remedies. The report highlights concerns about complaints involving privacy, victims of crime, grieving families, children and reporting connected to the justice system.
Kathryn Cearns OBE, chair of the PRP, says an effective regulator should do more than simply process complaints. “An effective press regulator must do more than process complaints,” she says. “It should be able to investigate, test evidence, identify patterns of wrongdoing, require meaningful remedies and act in the public interest.”
The report also questions whether stronger powers are being used in practice. It notes that IPSO has never launched a standards investigation, imposed a fine or required a publisher to issue an apology.
Why this debate never really went away
The report also reopens questions left unresolved after the Leveson Inquiry. Launched in the aftermath of the phone-hacking scandal, Leveson examined the relationship between sections of the press, politicians and police, and proposed a new system of independent self-regulation intended to balance press freedom with public accountability.
A second stage of the inquiry – commonly known as Leveson 2 – had been expected to examine unlawful conduct within parts of the press and whether regulation was working effectively. However, Theresa May’s government cancelled that phase in 2018. Supporters of the decision argued that the press had already changed substantially and further inquiry risked chilling journalism. Critics argued important questions had been left unanswered.
The PRP’s latest report suggests that debate has not disappeared.
Why East Anglia Bylines is publishing this
Most readers probably never think about which regulator oversees the publication they are reading.
IPSO is the largest press complaints body in the UK and regulates most national newspapers. Other regulators and complaints systems also exist.
One of these is IMPRESS, which is currently the only regulator independently recognised under the Royal Charter system created following Leveson. Recognition is intended to assess whether a regulator is independent from both government and the publishers it oversees, and whether it has systems designed to provide meaningful routes to redress.
East Anglia Bylines – and all publications within the Bylines Network – are regulated by IMPRESS.
That does not mean publications regulated by IMPRESS do not make mistakes or receive complaints. It means complaints can ultimately be considered within a system independently assessed against those post-Leveson standards.
What the PRP wants to happen next
The Press Recognition Panel does not regulate publishers and does not investigate complaints itself. Its role is limited to assessing regulators against the Royal Charter criteria. But its latest report goes beyond criticism and calls for change.
The PRP is urging news publishers either to join a regulator recognised under the Royal Charter system, reform IPSO so that it could meet those standards, or work together to establish a new body capable of seeking recognition.
It is also calling on the Government to encourage that change and to consider whether further measures are needed to strengthen accountability and protect the public from press harm.
Whether that happens remains uncertain. More than a decade after Leveson, the wider argument over how to balance press freedom with meaningful public protection appears far from settled. But the report suggests at least one body created after Leveson believes the current system is not delivering what was originally intended.
This article is based on a press release from the Press Recognition Panel, compiled with assistance from AI tools and edited by East Anglia Bylines.
More from East Anglia Bylines
Truth is power
Nominate an organisation that needs scrutiny
