Email
Monday is a significant moment in press history. A new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), opens its doors to offer recompense to people who believe they have been unfairly treated by newspapers and magazines. The fact that those doors are currently in the same building as the regulator it replaces, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), is an embarrassment. Critics of the new system will view it as evidence that Ipso is no more than a retread of its discredited predecessor, no more than son of PCC or PCC2.
In fact, the shared building reflects a small problem about leases that will be resolved soon. What really matters is whether Ipso can justify its claim to be independent from the publishers who created it in defiance of parliament. To that end, its supporters’ faith is heavily invested in its inaugural chairman, the former appeal court judge Sir Alan Moses. He told the Guardian: “Our guiding principle is freedom from control. I will try to prove that we can act independently and run an independent process. We must demonstrate that we can do it.”
Moses is well aware that he and Ipso are on trial. Several newspapers – the Guardian and Independent groups and Financial Times – and magazines such as the Economist, New Statesman and Private Eye, have refused to sign up. Hacked Off, which represents press victims, remains opposed to any regulator that evades recognition by royal charter and is planning to protest outside Ipso’s office on Monday.
Then there are the ministers and MPs who feel they have been snubbed by publishers after devising royal charter recognition as a way, they hoped, to avoid direct state regulation while complying with Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendationsin his report on press standards. An alternative regulator, Impress, is in the process of creating itself, claiming to be a truly independent outfit. These detractors and critics will be closely monitoring how Moses and his colleagues shape up in the coming months.
It has been something of a soft launch, not least because there has been much detail to iron out between Moses and his publishing bosses. He is known to have regarded some of the rules, for instance, as “a joke”. He is also more eager than some of them to create an arbitration service, a key Leveson recommendation. Moses appears as sceptical about the publishers’ willingness to allow him independence as the editors who have decided to stay away. “They have signed contracts agreeing to be regulated,” he said, “and now we must see if they are genuine about it.”
In many ways, his opinions and those of the refusenik editors are similar. He and they are going to suck it and see. Although Moses has met these editors and managers, he wishes to show by example rather than acting as a persuader on behalf of publishers. The Guardian’s editorial on Friday, in which it spelled out its reasons for not joining Ipso, was anything but rejectionist: “This paper will wait to see whether Sir Alan succeeds in reforming some of the governance issues that still cause anxiety.”
Similarly, the Independent and London Evening Standard managing director, Andrew Mullins, has indicated that the titles would like to be part of Ipso and the door remains open. He has spoken of “teething things” under discussion with Ipso that could conceivably be overcome. This was confirmed by two other executives within the group who believe it is up to Moses to show he can act independently.
By contrast, the FT is determined to run with its own internal system of regulation and Greg Callus – a barrister specialising in media law who was a judicial assistant to Leveson – was chosen as its editorial complaints commissione by a new appointments and oversight committee separate from the editor. But the FT is planning to use the current editors’ code of practice as the basis for its own code, and is evidently doing so with the publishers’ blessing. The Independent will also continue to abide by the editors’ code, though it has one of its own as well.
Ipso’s method of operation will be slightly different from the PCC’s. People who complain directly to it will be advised whether their complaint has any merit. If it does, they will be expected to make out their case to the publication concerned. That will start the clock ticking on a 28-day period for the two parties to resolve the matter. If they don’t, the complainant can go back to Ipso to seek an adjudication (or, perhaps, a further attempt at mediation). Ipso, unlike the PCC, has the power to fine an offending publication. But the breach of the code would, of necessity, have to be blatant and even then, it would probably have to be a serial offender to warrant a fine.
It is much more likely, in the general run of things, that critics will concentrate their initial attention on how often Ipso adjudicates on breaches because the PCC was persistently attacked for failing to do so often enough. Moses surely knows the jury are out on Ipso. Can he return a verdict to win over the refuseniks?
;