Ethics and regulations - Newspapers
Newspapers v broadcasters
Newspapers and online-only publications can be biased, but broadcasters cannot. Ofcom can levy
huge fines [£2m fine for ITV over faked documentary] and remove the licence of commercial
broadcasters if there has been a serious breach of the code [press tv in 2012, Russia today in 2022.]
The IPSO or the Independent Press Standards Organisation uses the Editor’s Code of Practice to file
complaints on behalf of those written about in newspapers, websites and magazines. In the US, there
is no state control regarding who can or cannot own or run their own website, magazine or news
organisation - this as a result prevents state intervention in the press.
Fragmentation of press regulation
In 2011, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) was discredited because it failed to investigate the
extent of the phone hacking scandal by the journalists at the News of the World.
- The Independent Press Standards Organisation or IPSO: An individual who has approached
the IPSO will be asked which part of the Editors’ Code has, in their view, been breached. An
individual can only complain within 5 months of a piece’s publication, or 12 months if digital.
IPSO’s complaint process is free to use and all news organisations signed with IPSO are
contractually obliged to cooperate with their standards. Damages can be awarded up to
£60,000. IPSO has the power to fine members of publication up to £1 million for breaching
the code.
- Members of the IPSO must produce annual reports demonstrating the ethical training that
their journalists have received, as well as how they handle their complaints.
- IPSO may suggest that a complaint is not justified, or can be dismissed through the likes of an
editor’s apology or the publication of corrections. In 2020, IPSO received more than 30,000
complaints and inquiries, a majority of which were considered as not being a breach of the
code. 496 were taken forwards in investigation, whilst 77 were found as having had a code
clause breached.
If an individual complains to IPSO about a comment on a member’s
website, IPSO will regard the complaint depending on whether it has
been moderated before publication. Breaching the code is not a criminal
offence but instead ethical conduct. If somebody states their privacy has
been breached, a journalist can potentially justify their actions by
stating that it was in the public’s interest. This is used if the information
1. Detects or exposes a crime or its threat
2. Protecting public health or safety
3. Protecting the public from being misled by an action or
statement of an individual or organisation
4. Disclosing a person or organisation’s failure to comply
5. Disclosing a miscarriage of injustice
6. Raising or contributing to public debate
To state that such information is in the public interest emphasises the
potential significance that journalism has in the maintenance of order in
16
, society. The welfare of a child however is an exception to this as their privacy needs to be secured. To
use the idea of public interest however is only valid with evidence (“will need to demonstrate that
they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic activity taken with a view to publication - would
both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reacher that decision at
the time.”)
Examples of IPSO complaints:
1. The Luck Case (2019) - In 2019, ISPO found that Colin Luck’s complaint that the Mail on
Sunday had violated clause 10 of the Editors’ Code through their usage of the headline
“Exposed: The Sex for Rent Landlords.” Luck, a landlord, had advertised for a female student
to come to stay on his property for free in
exchange for “intimacy and companionship. The
newspaper argued that such ‘service’ was illegal
and so authorised a female reporter to
anonymously approach Luck with the expression
of interest. They justified such a report and
investigation, stating that this was in the public
interest as these living conditions could be
sexually threatening or targeted at the vulnerable.
The newspaper evidenced this by announcing that
Luck had made sexual advancements toward the
female reporter, referring to sexual acts.
Accuracy and opportunity to reply
Clause one states “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.” As well as “while free to
editorialise and campaign must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.” Most
complaints to IPSO claim inaccuracy as their reasoning. Articles of inaccuracy cannot be justified by
the journalist as there is no public interest in what is not accurate.
Examples of publications where IPSO confirmed that clause one had been breached through the
usage of false information:
1. A Daily Star front page reporting on the death of Lorna Brooke falsely referred to her as
‘Laura Brooke’ and when correcting their mistake four days later, again failed to fix their
mistake by referring to her as Brookes. (Chambers v Daily Star, 18th of August 2021.)
2. A caption of a man smoking from a shisha pipe by Thurrock.numb.news stated that the man
in question was consuming drugs as there was a “smell of drugs”, however, it was found the
publisher had no evidence of what the individual was actually smoking. (A Man v
Thurrock.nub.news, 17th of February 2021.)
3. A 2020 Daily Telegraph article reported in its headline that “half of Britain’s imported
coronavirus cases originated from Pakistan” however, IPSO found that this was misleading as
this information was very minimalistically referenced and the statistics were only collected
throughout the period of three weeks - therefore not accurate. (The Centre for Media
Monitoring v The Daily Telegraph, 26th of November 2020.)
4. An article released by the Express reported that football player James Milner had been booed
during a match, however, it was actually found that Milner did not participate in the captioned
match and therefore was not booed at all. The news organisation later confessed that the piece
17
Newspapers v broadcasters
Newspapers and online-only publications can be biased, but broadcasters cannot. Ofcom can levy
huge fines [£2m fine for ITV over faked documentary] and remove the licence of commercial
broadcasters if there has been a serious breach of the code [press tv in 2012, Russia today in 2022.]
The IPSO or the Independent Press Standards Organisation uses the Editor’s Code of Practice to file
complaints on behalf of those written about in newspapers, websites and magazines. In the US, there
is no state control regarding who can or cannot own or run their own website, magazine or news
organisation - this as a result prevents state intervention in the press.
Fragmentation of press regulation
In 2011, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) was discredited because it failed to investigate the
extent of the phone hacking scandal by the journalists at the News of the World.
- The Independent Press Standards Organisation or IPSO: An individual who has approached
the IPSO will be asked which part of the Editors’ Code has, in their view, been breached. An
individual can only complain within 5 months of a piece’s publication, or 12 months if digital.
IPSO’s complaint process is free to use and all news organisations signed with IPSO are
contractually obliged to cooperate with their standards. Damages can be awarded up to
£60,000. IPSO has the power to fine members of publication up to £1 million for breaching
the code.
- Members of the IPSO must produce annual reports demonstrating the ethical training that
their journalists have received, as well as how they handle their complaints.
- IPSO may suggest that a complaint is not justified, or can be dismissed through the likes of an
editor’s apology or the publication of corrections. In 2020, IPSO received more than 30,000
complaints and inquiries, a majority of which were considered as not being a breach of the
code. 496 were taken forwards in investigation, whilst 77 were found as having had a code
clause breached.
If an individual complains to IPSO about a comment on a member’s
website, IPSO will regard the complaint depending on whether it has
been moderated before publication. Breaching the code is not a criminal
offence but instead ethical conduct. If somebody states their privacy has
been breached, a journalist can potentially justify their actions by
stating that it was in the public’s interest. This is used if the information
1. Detects or exposes a crime or its threat
2. Protecting public health or safety
3. Protecting the public from being misled by an action or
statement of an individual or organisation
4. Disclosing a person or organisation’s failure to comply
5. Disclosing a miscarriage of injustice
6. Raising or contributing to public debate
To state that such information is in the public interest emphasises the
potential significance that journalism has in the maintenance of order in
16
, society. The welfare of a child however is an exception to this as their privacy needs to be secured. To
use the idea of public interest however is only valid with evidence (“will need to demonstrate that
they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic activity taken with a view to publication - would
both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reacher that decision at
the time.”)
Examples of IPSO complaints:
1. The Luck Case (2019) - In 2019, ISPO found that Colin Luck’s complaint that the Mail on
Sunday had violated clause 10 of the Editors’ Code through their usage of the headline
“Exposed: The Sex for Rent Landlords.” Luck, a landlord, had advertised for a female student
to come to stay on his property for free in
exchange for “intimacy and companionship. The
newspaper argued that such ‘service’ was illegal
and so authorised a female reporter to
anonymously approach Luck with the expression
of interest. They justified such a report and
investigation, stating that this was in the public
interest as these living conditions could be
sexually threatening or targeted at the vulnerable.
The newspaper evidenced this by announcing that
Luck had made sexual advancements toward the
female reporter, referring to sexual acts.
Accuracy and opportunity to reply
Clause one states “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.” As well as “while free to
editorialise and campaign must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.” Most
complaints to IPSO claim inaccuracy as their reasoning. Articles of inaccuracy cannot be justified by
the journalist as there is no public interest in what is not accurate.
Examples of publications where IPSO confirmed that clause one had been breached through the
usage of false information:
1. A Daily Star front page reporting on the death of Lorna Brooke falsely referred to her as
‘Laura Brooke’ and when correcting their mistake four days later, again failed to fix their
mistake by referring to her as Brookes. (Chambers v Daily Star, 18th of August 2021.)
2. A caption of a man smoking from a shisha pipe by Thurrock.numb.news stated that the man
in question was consuming drugs as there was a “smell of drugs”, however, it was found the
publisher had no evidence of what the individual was actually smoking. (A Man v
Thurrock.nub.news, 17th of February 2021.)
3. A 2020 Daily Telegraph article reported in its headline that “half of Britain’s imported
coronavirus cases originated from Pakistan” however, IPSO found that this was misleading as
this information was very minimalistically referenced and the statistics were only collected
throughout the period of three weeks - therefore not accurate. (The Centre for Media
Monitoring v The Daily Telegraph, 26th of November 2020.)
4. An article released by the Express reported that football player James Milner had been booed
during a match, however, it was actually found that Milner did not participate in the captioned
match and therefore was not booed at all. The news organisation later confessed that the piece
17
