How the Editors’ Code lets poor press standards persist

Public trust in the press depends on newspapers and journalists being committed to high standards of ethical and factual reporting. These standards should define clearly what are acceptable and unacceptable journalistic practices, to ensure that public complaints about press reporting are judged fairly and effectively.

The majority of the UK’s national and regional newspapers are members of IPSO, a complaints-handling body which oversees compliance with the Editors’ Code of Practice (although the Code itself is owned and controlled by a committee of newspaper editors). The Code is described as “the framework for the highest professional standards” for the press, and IPSO is responsible for judging whether a newspaper has breached the Code following a public complaint.

Every week the Press Justice Project helps members of the public who have experienced different forms of abuse, harassment or harm by the press. Sadly, the common experience of these individuals is that IPSO does not promote high press standards, and is failing to hold newspaper publishers accountable for misconduct. Recent polling shows that the British public also believes poor standards and abuses are rife in press reporting, yet IPSO upheld just 0.6% of the 6,655 complaints against its member publishers in 2024.

AN UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD

Although part of the problem is how IPSO handles public complaints, there are also serious failures in the Editors’ Code itself. Its core regulations are worded ambiguously, and most do not actually define the standards of reporting that editors and journalists are expected to meet.

The result is that the Code creates an uneven playing field between newspaper publishers and the public. People seeking to complain about press coverage face unreasonably high thresholds to prove the Code has been broken, which enables IPSO to dismiss complaints or avoid formally censuring newspapers for poor standards of journalism. This is no different to the failed state of press self-regulation identified by the Leveson Inquiry, 14 years ago, which found that “rules are being made which suit the editors themselves and not the public.”

As part of the recent review of the Editors’ Code, the Press Justice Project has proposed a number of changes to the Code. These revisions would substantially enhance the effectiveness of the Code in promoting high standards of press reporting, protecting individuals and the wider public from press abuse, and ensuring newspapers are properly held to account when they get things wrong. These are all necessary features for any model of press self-regulation that is deserving of public trust and confidence.

MAKING CORRECTIONS MATTER

The ‘Preamble’ of the Editors’ Code describes its purposes and principles as the “cornerstone” of voluntary self-regulation. Part of this includes a requirement that newspapers found to have breached the Code by IPSO must publish the regulator’s ruling “in full and with due prominence, as required by IPSO”.

‘Due prominence’ is not, however, a clear standard that meets the public’s expectations for full accountability and transparency in cases of press misconduct. Leaving the placement of corrections or apologies to IPSO’s discretion has allowed newspapers to ‘bury’ adverse rulings, with previous analysis finding that IPSO-ordered corrections were on average eight times smaller than the text of the original offending article.

Instead of this loose standard for ‘due’ prominence, the Code should require “equivalent prominence” for corrections and apologies. This should be clearly defined as meaning the same placement and size as the article that was found in breach of the Code - including both print and online. If a breach occurred as part of the text on a newspaper’s front page, for example, the ruling should also be published on the front page with an equally prominent headline.

A DUTY TO STRIVE FOR ACCURACY

The vast majority of complaints about IPSO-member newspapers relate to inaccuracies and misleading reporting, which is covered by Clause 1 of the Code. Currently, the Code only requires that the press “take care not to publish” inaccuracies or misleading content. 

While total accuracy is not always possible, trustworthy and accountable journalism depends on the press demonstrating the best possible efforts to obtain the truth - and not merely an attempt to not publish inaccuracies. Clause 1 should be amended with a new duty on newspapers “to strive to report accurately and in a way that does not mislead”.

Clause 1 also does not currently define what constitutes a “significant” inaccuracy that requires correction, giving publishers a great deal of leeway to brush away public complaints.

This has led to IPSO regularly declining to make an official ruling on alleged inaccurate or misleading reporting, either because a publisher has issued their own correction (however inadequate) or because the complaint has been resolved through mediation.

These informal resolutions should not enable publishers to avoid censure for a breach in editorial standards, and the Code should be amended to remove this slippage between the regulations and clear public accountability.

THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Clause 2 of the Editors’ Code, concerning privacy, is the second most frequent subject of public complaints to the press. Clause 2 does not provide individuals with a reasonable expectation of privacy that distinguishes private and public places, nor does it provide equal protections between ‘offline’ and online spaces, like social media platforms.

Clause 2 should be revised to strengthen individuals’ rights against press intrusion. Editors’ justifications for intrusion should only be considered against individuals’ “deliberate” disclosure of information that is “directly relevant” to the subject of an article.

The Code should only allow for photos or videos of individuals in private places to be published where there is an exceptional public interest justification. Reports including information taken from individuals’ social media activity must also respect the individuals’ privacy settings - including whether the information was intended for a small or defined audience, such as a private or community group

HARASSMENT, GRIEF AND SHOCK, AND REPORTING SUICIDE

Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Editors’ Code relate to forms of press misconduct that can have the most abusive and traumatising impact on members of the public. Yet these Clauses lack clarity and robustness, resulting in routine cases of press malpractice that cause further harm to people facing deeply tragic or unfortunate circumstances, such as the death of a family member.

Clause 3 on harassment should create much clearer responsibilities for journalists when engaging with members of the public who do not wish to speak to the press, for example by requiring journalists to always identify themselves - by name and publication - and prohibiting intimidating behaviour, like threats of adverse treatment.

Clause 4 is woefully inadequate for protecting the bereaved, or individuals experiencing trauma, from intrusive and exploitative reporting. The Code currently only requires that publication is handled “sensitively”, and does not create enforceable standards to prevent newspapers publishing distressing information without the informed consent of people affected by bereavement or shocking incidents.

Clause 4 should be significantly expanded, with new duties on journalists and editors to seek informed consent from affected individuals (or their representatives), and preventing excessive or speculative reporting about the bereaved.

Clause 5’s standards for reporting suicide are too narrowly defined, and IPSO’s non-binding guidance is out of step with reporting recommendations from groups like Samaritans UK. The Code should require the press to avoid speculation about the motivations or cause of a suicide, and establish a clear responsibility on journalists to report suicide without sensationalising or trivialising a death.

PROTECTING GROUPS FROM DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICE

Currently, Clause 12 of the Code only applies to individuals - allowing the press to publish prejudicial, pejorative and abusive material about entire groups, as long as an individual is not directly referenced.

IPSO’s constitution and non-binding guidance have created a precedent in which the ‘right’ of newspapers to discriminate against minority groups will always win out over those groups’ rights to live free from prejudice and abuse by the press.

By stating that the regulator “may, but is not obliged to” consider complaints from “a representative group”, IPSO has an unreasonable degree of discretion to determine whether a complaint will even be considered - let alone adjudicated fairly.

Worse, the wording of Clause 12 allows IPSO to transfer the burden of justifying a complaint onto a third-party, rather than determining the case of a complaint for itself - a basic and fundamental duty of any regulator.

Clause 12 should be significantly expanded, with a defined standard against publishing prejudicial content against protected and minority groups, along with a positive right of third parties to make complaints when reporting does not reference an individual.

WRITING THEIR OWN RULES

The root cause of many of the failings in the Editors’ Code is that it is written and controlled by the Code of Practice Committee, a body ultimately owned by the same publishing companies whose newspapers are members of IPSO. Almost all of the current members of the Committee are serving newspaper editors, which undermines the independence and rigour of the Code by failing to separate regulator from regulated. This clearly needs to change, with the constitution of the Code stating that responsibility for writing and reviewing the Code belongs to the regulator, rather than a small panel of newspaper editors.

A breach of the Code is a serious harm against individuals affected by press misconduct, the public at large, and journalism as a profession. Yet there is currently no formal role for either members of the public or serving journalists (rather than editors and publishing executives) to contribute to the standards and ethical requirements set out by the Editors’ Code.

The PJP therefore recommends that any body responsible for writing and reviewing the Code should comprise at least one-quarter of serving journalists and one-quarter lay members, to balance out the influence and interests of serving editors.