The Future of Press Regulation: A Public Outcry for Trusted Journalism

By Harry Hodges-Long

In late 2023, I was involved in innovative research on public attitudes toward the state of journalism and press regulation, which revealed the erosion of public trust, as well as the ineffectiveness and lack of visibility of current regulatory bodies.

Focus group findings indicated that trust could be re-established if regulators aim for “greater visibility, transparency, efficacy, and public engagement” (Firmstone et al., 2024, p.2). The public need to be better informed and involved in regulatory processes to have confidence that the press are being effectively held to account.

For democracy to thrive, public trust in journalism is crucial.

In the UK, the press has repeatedly demonstrated unethical and untrustworthy behaviour, driven by the pursuit of political influence, advertising revenue and to gain competitive advantage.

As trust in traditional media erodes, the British public is increasingly turning to alternative channels to obtain information.

While digital technologies have provided citizens with new routes to access information, the ability to identify reliable sources has deteriorated. This is concerning given the public’s vast exposure to disinformation and misinformation in unregulated environments, especially online.

But why is the public becoming dependent on these new information sources instead of relying on legacy media that has been present for many decades, and for some, centuries?

To delve into this question, we need to understand the existing press regulatory landscape in the UK.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is the complaints-handler most popular with the print and digital news industry, regulating media giants such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, and the Daily Express. However, there have been numerous instances where IPSO has been perceived as ineffective and unsatisfactory.

Additionally, the Independent Monitor of the Press (IMPRESS), an independent regulator, ensures full compliance with the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry, unlike IPSO, but, at the time of writing, IMPRESS has been unable to attract any of the largest national newspapers to its alternative regulatory regime.

 

The Research

A recent report from the University of Leeds and the University of Derby titled, “Engaging the public in regulating for ethical journalism. Part Two: Focus Groups” identified key themes that demonstrate what the public understands about the current press regulatory landscape, their perceptions of regulatory practices, and how regulation could be improved to rebuild public trust.

The research included eight focus groups involving forty-four participants from diverse backgrounds (e.g., age, gender, and ethnicity). My role in the research was to analyse the focus group transcripts and identify important themes, which formed the foundations of the final report.

 

Findings and Recommendations

This section focuses on the broader issues identified in the research, using direct quotes from the report to illustrate key points.

 

1. Public Scepticism and Distrust

Many participants expressed concerns that mainstream news media publishes articles that are sensationalist and biased, heightening feelings of distrust.

Additionally, historical scandals by Tabloids such as The Sun and News of the World (e.g., Hillsborough and Phone Hacking), have had an enduring impact on public trust, leaving a lasting impression on the public’s memory.

Reflecting the significance of historical transgressions, one participant stated, “You would think though wouldn’t you with all the scandals and things that they have had over the years that they would learn from this?” (p.18).

Although restoring trust may be difficult for generations who have lived through these scandals, rebuilding trust is necessary for younger generations who are facing modern challenges in the digital age.

 

2. Lack of Visibility & Awareness of Regulatory Bodies

Many participants were shocked to learn that membership to a regulator is not compulsory and expressed a desire for a sole regulator to be created that upholds consistent standards.

If regulation is not visible, trust cannot be established.

This lack of visibility led to surprising revelations concerning which news outlets are regulated, and which are not – The Guardian being self-regulated troubled many participants regardless of their perception of the publisher as trustworthy.

This confusion was widespread amongst the focus groups. As one individual remarked, “The Times- Financial Times and the other two newspapers, they are supposed to regulate themselves. How can you regulate yourself? What do they – what have they put in place at – do people know where to go and complain about this? I don’t think many people know; I don’t know.” (p.26).

It was surprising to discover how little the average member of the public understands and knows about the regulation of journalism.

One participant captured this general sentiment, “But I didn’t know there were regulators, so they are just these guys in the sky here regulating our newspapers and we don’t know why they are there or what they change or what they do and what difference they make” (p.27).

How can trust be established if you do not know who you are trusting, and how they are attempting to protect you from falsehoods and inaccuracies?

More communication, transparency, and signposting by a regulator would amplify trust. This idea extends to punishment being signposted by newspapers, so that readers are aware of the press being held to account.

 

3. Desire for Public Participation in Regulatory Processes

Across multiple focus groups, participants called for the integration of the public within regulators when it came to decision-making processes.

For example, the creation of a jury service model would ensure that a diverse range of voices would be heard; however, many stated that specialised knowledge and expertise were essential to ensure that effective decisions were made.

As a participant commented, “Why not people like you get on a jury, where they’re people who work or live ordinary lives and they’re appointed to the post, they are given a set brief, they know the conditions that they are trying to regulate and the standards they are trying to uphold” (p.38).

There is a clear desire from the public to ensure independence from bias, more needs to be done to establish an objective and impartial regulatory process.

One of the most unexpected findings of the report was the public’s desire to engage in discussion and continue to research press regulators following the relatively short focus groups.

A participant summarised this growing interest, stating, “I have to say, interestingly I’ve learned something here about this regulatory body and I’m going to go away and look these up now and find out what they’re framework is and what they do and who’s behind it ….” (p.41).

This interest in press regulation should NOT be understated.

If visibility is amplified by press regulators, the public can be captivated by the issue.

 

4. Challenges of Regulating Online News

The future of journalism revolves around the public’s demand for regulators to tackle the growing threat of misinformation and disinformation circulating in online environments.

However, some participants expressed a tenacious commitment to ensuring that freedom of speech is not impinged by regulators.

A participant highlighted this concern, “You’re then getting into the realms of like suppression of freedom of the press and freedom of speech if you are saying you can’t print that because of these reasons, you think well that goes against freedom of speech you have just because you’re printing something that’s against your or opposes your opinion” (p.23).

Readers of print news noted that corrections could be found in subsequent issues, whereas news consumption in the digital age presents an entirely new challenge.

Without devout loyalty to a particular newspaper due to the plethora of articles from news sites and social media platforms, corrections may be unable to reach those that consumed the original article.

Realistically, without a notification pointing you to a correction in an article you read, most individuals are not going to see errors and inaccurate statements that have been made.

Although the regulatory landscape has become increasingly difficult to manage, more regulation has to be implemented to ensure the public is protected.

 

The Path that Lies Ahead

After completing the research, it is clear to me that the opportunity to restore public trust is slowly slipping away.

As online information sources continue to proliferate and evolve, so too must our regulatory frameworks.

Without swift action to ensure ethical journalism – democracy, political processes, government actions, polarisation, national stability, and public opinion can be unduly influenced by a small group of press and social media owners.

The report’s findings clearly highlight the need for greater visibility, transparency, accountability, and a regulatory system that includes general public participation.

It is not enough to depend on outdated regulations that fail to tackle the key challenges citizens face today.

We have already witnessed bleak real-world examples that have stemmed from political bias, lies, and mis/disinformation, which have profoundly shaped the contemporary world.

The publication of this report coincided with riots in the UK triggered by the murder of three children in Southport. These riots were fueled by the spread of misinformation on social media platforms by unreliable news outlets.

As we progress further into a world of saturated information, improving press regulation and engaging the public in regulatory processes is not just desirable – it is essential.

The future of our democracy depends on it.

Harry Hodges-Long has an MA in Political Communication from the University of Leeds.  In 2023 he was awarded the Philip M. Taylor Award for his dissertation on intermedia agenda-setting and politicians’ tweeting behaviours.

We rely on people like you to make a difference.

Give now to support the campaign for a free and accountable press.