In recent years, even those in the publishing industry might have found it easy to overlook the work of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).
There were few headlines, no obvious scandals and an apparent lessening of controversy as the organisation headed into its second decade.
Perhaps IPSO was just getting on with its job offering a free service of adjudication to those complaining that members of IPSO had breached the editor’s code of practice, the code that all member publishers are subject to.
There was also an arbitration service mainly involving complaints of libel and invasion of privacy at a bargain price of between £55 and £100.
The headlines were elsewhere, in the High Court as Prince Harry, supported by well-known actors, singers and politicians, launched civil cases against what they alleged was press illegality.
In the latest case, Prince Harry, and the others, have taken Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail to court and the legal bill is believed to have already reached £40 million and rising.
Recent high-profile adjudications
IPSO has had its moments, including a particularly dramatic one in 2022 when more than 25,000 people complained about a Jeremy Clarkson column in The Sun in which he wrote about dreaming to see the Duchess of Sussex being paraded naked through the streets.
IPSO adjudicated on two representative complaints and found that the Clarkson article had been sexist and that the imagery used had been “humiliating and degrading towards the Duchess”.
The watchdog did however reject complaints that the piece had been discriminatory either on the grounds of race or had sought to harass the Duchess.
Along the way, The Mail on Sunday had to clarify a “misleading” claim by then Tory politician Suella Braverman about the ethnicity of grooming gangs, The Express was found to have published a number of “significantly misleading” articles between 2024-25 involving government economic policies, while last year, The Telegraph was found to have shown a “lack of care” over a headline about illegal migrant statistics in London.
At the same time, IPSO more than survived an external examination of its work by a former senior civil servant, Sir Bill Jeffrey, who found that the regulator had been operating independently and was well run and managed. Sir Bill did make recommendations about displaying greater transparency particularly on areas such as its finances, recommendations IPSO was happy to implement.
Given the tumultuous past, and scandals over phone hacking, everything now seemed surprisingly normal, at least by comparison.
Calls for Leveson 2
Then in December, IPSO was once again in the firing line, when Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of the missing Madeline, and around 30 other people who described themselves as “victims” of press intrusion, called for a meeting with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. They wanted to discuss the strengthening of press regulation and the implementation of the second phase of the Leveson inquiry originally designed to look at relations between the press and the police.
“Despite the industry’s history of illegality, corruption and misconduct, the same publishers remain members of IPSO, a body they control. As Leveson warned, the press continues to mark their own homework,” the campaigners wrote.
On Radio 4’s Today programme, Gerry McCann said it was unacceptable that more than a year after Labour came to power, press regulation was “no longer a priority”.
It is not clear whether Sir Keir, as opposed to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, will meet the campaigners, although the government has ruled out setting up Leveson 2.
The McCanns and their supporters have however re-ignited debate, something that Charlotte Dewar, chief executive of IPSO understands, and in a way accepts as inevitable.
“There is absolutely no question whatsoever that there was serious misconduct by journalists up to and including criminality in British journalism for many years,” says Dewar who has worked in press regulation at IPSO and its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission, for around fifteen years.
“Those are the stakes and British journalism has to live with that, deal with that, and hearing stories like the McCanns’, and sadly many others, is just a reminder of how important it is for us to get up every morning and do our job seriously,” adds Dewar who was brought up in rural Connecticut.
As a student, she worked on the Yale Daily News but after moving to the UK where her parents were then living, and working as a researcher and PA for former Times editor Sir Simon Jenkins, decided that journalism was not for her.
There was a vacancy at the PCC and she thought, “that might be interesting” partly because she admits to a taste for complicated problems that don’t have simple answers.
The IPSO chief executive notes that while many of the cases that led people to join campaigns for tougher press regulation are historic, the hurt is real and “we are not complacent because misconduct does still occur and we have got to be on top of it.”
But the IPSO chief executive dismisses as “very, very, misleading” the allegation that the press body only deals with a tiny minority of complaints, pointing to the sort of representative adjudications as in the Clarkson case.
“Generally, one third of the complaints are upheld in cases that raise a possible breach of the code, and about 60 per cent are either upheld or resolved to the satisfaction of the complaints – that is very high,” Dewar argues.
With alleged inaccuracies, for example, IPSO clarifies the nature of the complaint and puts it to the editor of the publication involved which then has 28 days to respond. This frequently leads to publication of a correction.
ISPO can also get involved in real time in complaints about possible breaches of privacy – often in cases of tragedies or death.
“If someone who has journalists on their front lawn and is upset about it, I want them to know we can help with that really quickly. It really does happen and it is massively helpful,” says Dewar.
IPSO has no powers of restraint but can get in touch with the publication involved. The implication is clear, if there is intrusion and they persist, they could face a formal complaint.
Dewar explains where the limits lie. A journalist on a “death knock” rang the outer doorbell at a home but when there was no reply, went through an open door into a porch and knocked. A complaint about the follow-up knock was upheld.
Unsurprisingly, Dewar defends the independence of IPSO, citing not just the verdict of external independent assessor Sir Bill Jeffrey but also that there is a majority of lay members, as opposed to journalists, on the committee that rules on complaints.
It’s all about the code
But the heart of IPSO’s work, and a theme that the IPSO chief executive keeps returning to, is the importance of the 16-clause editor’s code.
Implementing that code and following the chain of editorial control means, she argues, that IPSO regulation is relevant not just for print but digital, AI generated material, podcasts, videos and even for user-generated content.
“The digital world is most of our world these days. The vast majority of our complaints are coming from digital material whether it’s published on publisher’s websites or not, or on third party sites,” explains Dewar.
“The key, and it’s at the core of everything we do, is who had editorial control of the content. As long as we can say that someone within the editorial chain of command made the decision to publish in whatever form, remedial action can be taken,” she adds.
The same applies to user generated content if it has been through some form of editorial control or moderation.
As for AI, IPSO notes that journalists have always been able to use different forms of technology as part of journalism. If publishers use AI to partly, or wholly, generate material, they will still be held responsible.
“We are not going to say you can’t use it (AI) but we will hold you accountable if you use it in a way which breaches the editor’s code,” warns Dewar.
The IPSO chief executive believes the organisation can positively share information to help journalists “avoid those worst days at work” by pointing out where people have been caught out in the past and how such problems can be avoided in future.
Her long experience at IPSO will provide continuity as changes come at the top of the organisation in April.
The current chair, the barrister and former politician Lord Faulks will stand down after serving two terms and will be replaced by Jenny Watson, deputy chair of the University of East Anglia who also chaired the Electoral Commission for seven years.
The following exposition of the challenges, dilemmas and ultimate importance of her IPSO role by Charlotte Dewar should serve as a useful primer for the new chair.
“I strongly believe in freedom of expression” says Dewar who argues there is no conflict between such freedom and IPSO processes to uphold editorial standards.
“I truly believe that in order to protect freedom of expression, you have to protect the public from abuse. It’s sometimes felt that they are in tension but really, they are mutually reinforcing principles and it’s very compelling,” Charlotte Dewar insists.
But the IPSO chief executive accepts there is no end to such a story and that the case for IPSO-style regulation will have to be made as many times as it takes.
“In this era of huge changes and disruption, we need to show we are helping the public by raising standards and helping journalists by raising standards and by continually doing better,” explains Charlotte Dewar.
A copy of the editor’s code can be downloaded from: editorscode.org.uk
This article was first published in InPublishing magazine. If you would like to be added to the free mailing list to receive the magazine, please register here.
