Following Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy's speech on trust, standards and accountability in news, and the Government's plans to support local journalism, a key question remains: what kind of press should public funding sustain?
Our Chair, Kathryn Cearns OBE, explains why it matters.
We've published our decision following our consultation on guidance on the Royal Charter and online and digital news-related material.
This consultation set out draft guidance on four key issues arising from modern news publication.
Our 10th Annual Report on the Recognition System was informed by evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.
Thank you to all who contributed, including @hackedoff.bsky.social @impressorg.bsky.social @mediadiversity.bsky.social @nujofficial.bsky.social @pressjustice.bsky.social @wearequeeraf.com
Press accountability in the UK is uneven.
Some publishers participate in independently assessed regulation, structurally separate from government and industry, with guaranteed access to low-cost arbitration. Most major publishers do not.
Our report examines that accountability gap.
MDI made a contribution by answering a call to provide information on a range of questions including what more can be done for people affected by press harm to seek redress.
You can read the submissions and report: www.pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk/10th-annual-...
Read the full report:
www.pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk/wp-content/u...
Executive Summary:
www.pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk/wp-content/u...
What happens next depends on the choices made by the government and the press.
We remain ready to engage with Parliament, policymakers, and publishers on the next steps.
The Recognition System remains capable of delivering independent, technologically neutral oversight.
In an increasingly complex information environment, this provides both public protection and a clear signal of accountability and trust.
“The existing fully independent Recognition System remains operational. Yet despite this, most news providers have chosen to remain outside the system, overseeing their own output, leaving ordinary people at the mercy of political and industry choices.”
Our Chair, Kathryn Cearns OBE, said:
“The substantial harm caused by inaccurate, misleading and intrusive press reporting to individuals and communities across the UK is clearly evident. Lives are being destroyed, intruded upon, and marginalised groups face sustained and enduring attacks.
There is one Approved Regulator in the system, @impressorg.bsky.social, delivering independently assessed standards, transparent complaints processes, and access to low-cost arbitration.
Outside of the system, public protection and access to redress are uneven.
More than 35 stakeholders responded to our recent Call for Information.
We’re grateful to all those who contributed, including:
@amnestyuk.bsky.social
@runnymedetrust.bsky.social
@imkaanuk.bsky.social
@antisemitism.org
@evawuk.bsky.social
@sportinmind.bsky.social
@transmediawatch.bsky.social
Evidence submitted to us highlights disproportionate impacts on marginalised groups, including migrants, people with mental health conditions, women, and trans people, and a lack of effective routes to redress.
In today’s digital-first news landscape, that harm is amplified.
Stories circulate far beyond their original context. Headlines are repeated and reframed at scale, extending impact well outside a single publication or individual.
Press harm continues to affect individuals and communities across the UK.
Today, we’ve published our 10th Annual Report on the Recognition System. 🧵
New polling from @pressjustice.bsky.social backs up our recent YouGov research: the public wants press regulation independent of politicians and publishers – not industry-run complaints systems – and most believe press behaviour hasn’t improved since phone hacking, and is getting worse 📊
Unlike Prince Harry, most people can’t afford costly legal teams and are powerless when they feel the press has harmed them.
More than a decade after #Leveson, an accountability gap remains, leaving the public largely unprotected.
#PrinceHarryVsDailyMail
Our Call for Information has now closed.
A huge thank you to everyone who took part – we’ve had a really strong and thoughtful response.
We’ll be spending the New Year carefully considering submissions as we prepare our next report on the Recognition System.
Season’s greetings!
⏳ ONE WEEK TO GO!
Our Call for Information on press regulation in the UK closes Friday 19 December.
We want evidence from the public, journalists, publishers, academics, campaigners, and anyone with an interest in press standards and accountability.
Don’t miss this chance to have your say 💬
“We have written numerous times to the Secretary of State to offer a meeting to discuss how the government can implement the simple, existing solutions to promote accountability and protect the public from press harm, while protecting press freedom.”
“Beyond warm words from the Secretary of State about setting up meetings, we are unable to identify how protecting the public from press intrusion and harm features in the Government’s thinking.
Our Chair, Kathryn Cearns OBE, said: “Gerry McCann’s words reflect the views of the vast majority of the UK’s population. 4 in 5 people believe the press often invades people’s privacy, and 7 in 10 say the press often publishes false or misleading information and fails to correct mistakes.
Victims have already given extensive evidence. Leveson examined these issues across nearly 2,000 pages, at a cost of £5.4m. The challenge is not a lack of ideas – it is the failure of successive governments to act on what is already known.
Lisa Nandy noted that people now get news “online from a whole variety of sources,” creating “new and different challenges.” But as Gerry pointed out, much of the harmful material “arises in the mainstream press and their websites.”
But more than a year into government, no changes have been implemented. Major publishers still opt out of independent oversight. IPSO is not a regulator. As Gerry said, it “is not independent or Leveson-compliant”, and victims still have no access to redress.
Lisa Nandy acknowledged a “very, very patchy landscape” in UK media regulation and a long-standing disparity between standards for broadcasters and the press.
We’ve recently written to the Culture Secretary, the Prime Minister, and the CMS Committee to reiterate that Leveson Part 1 is unfinished business. An independent system of press self-regulation exists, but the political will to implement it in full is missing.
🧵 Gerry McCann’s BBC Radio 4 Today interview yesterday was a stark reminder that press harm is not historic. Families are still living with intrusive coverage, and people are being “damaged, destroyed on a daily basis.”
We recently wrote to the Culture Secretary to clarify that, whilst #Leveson 2 was never commenced, Leveson 1 is unfinished business.
An independent system of press regulation already exists. What’s missing is the political will to implement it and give victims the protections they were promised.
