Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) was set up in 2014 as a response to Leveson’s call for a regulator that would cease the failure of its predecessors. However, IPSO does not have an intention of being recognised as a press regulator under Royal Charter (Goodman, 2016). Goodman (2016) argues that IPSO does not support statutory regulation and considers it to be a threat to a free press. Therefore, by ignoring some of the key Leveson’s suggestions, it causes some critics to consider whether its structure and functioning are fully independent of the influence of the media industry. On the other hand, there are alternative self-regulators, such as, recently approved by the Press Recognition Panel, IMPRESS and in-house regulators,
…show more content…
This essay will explore the way in which IPSO operates and how it is structured. Furthermore, it will discuss the differences between IPSO and other press regulators. Lastly, the essay will highlight some advantages and disadvantages of state regulation.
Firstly, the essay will analyse the structure of IPSO – its Board, funding body and the appointment methods. To begin with, The Sun’s Trevor Kavanagh was a member of the Foundation Board responsible for appointing the panel, which selects the Board members, and Kavanagh is now on the IPSO’s Board (Barnett, 2016). This appointing process is contradictory with Leveson’s recommendations for an open and transparent way of appointing the members of a new regulator. Moreover, The Board itself consist of twelve members. The majority of them are independent of the industry, however, some have …show more content…
Thus, it is worth taking into account whether statutory press regulation should be employed. Its first advantage is the fact that self-regulation has failed more than once. In the history of the British press, a few attempts were made by the industry to create a regulator independent of the state (de Castella, 2013). All in all, PCC failed, and now IPSO seems to be unsuccessful in fulfilling its role. Barnett (2016) suggests that publications exploit the new regulator in the same way they did with PCC. In addition, the operation of Ofcom, statutory regulator, does not deprive broadcasters of their freedom and independence. For instance, they can still carry out investigative journalism and, in fact, have done so on numerous occasions, including the uncovering of Savile’s scandal (The Guardian, 2012). On the other hand, there are many advocates of sustaining the self-regulation of the press who point out the flaw of state regulation. Firstly, it would reintroduce state licensing which was abolished over 300 years ago – it would deny the press its right to freedom (Newstateman, 2012). The publications fear the possibility of censorship and Government’s intrusion on their watchdog role. As suggested by Rayner (2015) statutory regulation could put the investigative journalism to an end. Some newspapers regulated by IPSO, further trumpeted their
This essay will explore the way in which IPSO operates and how it is structured. Furthermore, it will discuss the differences between IPSO and other press regulators. Lastly, the essay will highlight some advantages and disadvantages of state regulation.
Firstly, the essay will analyse the structure of IPSO – its Board, funding body and the appointment methods. To begin with, The Sun’s Trevor Kavanagh was a member of the Foundation Board responsible for appointing the panel, which selects the Board members, and Kavanagh is now on the IPSO’s Board (Barnett, 2016). This appointing process is contradictory with Leveson’s recommendations for an open and transparent way of appointing the members of a new regulator. Moreover, The Board itself consist of twelve members. The majority of them are independent of the industry, however, some have …show more content…
Thus, it is worth taking into account whether statutory press regulation should be employed. Its first advantage is the fact that self-regulation has failed more than once. In the history of the British press, a few attempts were made by the industry to create a regulator independent of the state (de Castella, 2013). All in all, PCC failed, and now IPSO seems to be unsuccessful in fulfilling its role. Barnett (2016) suggests that publications exploit the new regulator in the same way they did with PCC. In addition, the operation of Ofcom, statutory regulator, does not deprive broadcasters of their freedom and independence. For instance, they can still carry out investigative journalism and, in fact, have done so on numerous occasions, including the uncovering of Savile’s scandal (The Guardian, 2012). On the other hand, there are many advocates of sustaining the self-regulation of the press who point out the flaw of state regulation. Firstly, it would reintroduce state licensing which was abolished over 300 years ago – it would deny the press its right to freedom (Newstateman, 2012). The publications fear the possibility of censorship and Government’s intrusion on their watchdog role. As suggested by Rayner (2015) statutory regulation could put the investigative journalism to an end. Some newspapers regulated by IPSO, further trumpeted their