Impress, the press regulator established as an alternative to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), has drafted an alternative ethical code.
The new “standards code” has been published on the Impress website and is available for public consultation (until 29 September).*
Following a detailed definition of public interest, and the way in which it should be invoked, it runs to 10 clauses, many of which are similar in tone, if not in wording, to the 16 clauses in the editors’ code of practice (ECP) as administered by Ipso.
One noticeable difference is the responsibility it places on “publishers” - as distinct from journalists or “the press” - to obey the rules.
Example: it states that “whilst free to be partisan, publishers must not misrepresent or distort the facts” while the ECP states: “The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.” [my italics]
It is much shorter than the editors’ code, but it draws heavily on the ECP, likewise beginning with a key clause stressing the need for accuracy. Several other similar clauses follow - on children, discrimination, harassment, privacy, suicide and sources - that feature also in the editors’ code.
Although there are no specific clauses about intrusions into grief and hospitals, these appear to be covered in shorter form in the clause on privacy.
Similarly, a short clause headlined “justice” deals with injunctions about payments to criminal and witnesses in trials, but in nothing like the detail employed in the ECP.
There is no clause dealing with financial journalism. This might be the subject of a revision during the consultation period, although it could be argued that the “transparency” clause, which is aimed at precluding conflicts of interest, covers it.
One clause, “attribution”, states that “publishers must take all reasonable steps to identify and credit the originator of any third party content”. There is no such clause in the ECP.
Oddly, given the reason for the Leveson inquiry (phone hacking), Impress’s draft code does not specifically prohibit the use of subterfuge, hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices, all of which are subject to strict regulation under the editors’ code. However, as a reader has pointed out, they probably would be covered by the prohibition - except in the public interest - on the use of “covert means.”
In the preamble to its draft code, Impress states it is meant to be “a practical working tool which enables journalists, editors and publishers to do their jobs” while being “easily understood by the public, and enforceable through regulation.”
This phrase, “enforceable through regulation”, is likely to raise the eyebrows of publishers (and journalists) who opposed the recommendations of the Leveson report on the grounds that they amounted to a threat to press freedom through state regulation.
Initial comment: During the Leveson hearings, despite the ordure heaped on the Press Complaints Commission, the ethical code it administered was one of the least contentious issues.
The editors’ code of practice, originally created in 1990 by a group of editors (including me) was part of the PCC package. Down the years, it was amended to take account of events we did not foresee (the treatment of Princess Diana, an editor’s purchase of shares, advances in surveillance technology).
Essentially, the spine remained the same and, having served the trade so well, it was hardly a surprise that it was adopted, without change, by Ipso.
That spine is also evident in the Impress alternative. So, apart from tinkering at the edges - and the very definite stress on publishers being accountable for the output of their various outlets - it does not strike me as either unique or even necessary. It is largely window-dressing, with several phrases plucked from the ECP.
Yet it is not as comprehensive as the editors’ code, which was amended and enlarged in order to deal with loopholes that the Impress code appears to leave open.
Some clauses are weaker and flabby. Take the one on children. It says “publishers must only interview, photograph or otherwise record the words or actions of a child under the age of 16 years with the assent of the child or a responsible adult”. Assent of a child?
I suspect the transparency clause was supposed to overcome the problem highlighted by Peter Oborne when he resigned from the Daily Telegraph in February 2015 over the supposed link between editorial decision-making and trying to keep advertisers happy. If so, it’s a terrible failure, being unenforceable and open to wide interpretation by publishers.
The justice clause is also flawed. Note that final injunction: “Publishers must not pay public officials for information, except as permitted by law.”
But “the law”, as the cases heard so recently against The Sun’s staff illustrated, is far from clear. Oddly, the clause does not even offer a public interest defence for payment. Yet public interest, which Impress makes clear is at the heart of its code, was the reason juries cleared the Sun journalists.
I’m afraid to say that this Impress code is wholly unimpressive.
*To respond to the draft code, either fill out the online survey or write, via email, info@impress.press, or by post to Impress, 83 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0HW (More details here)
PS: The Guardian, the Observer, Financial Times, the Independent and London Evening Standard are not regulated by either Ipso or Impress. The vast majority of the national, regional and local press are regulated by Ipso. Some 42 small, independent news outlets are either regulated by Impress, or awaiting regulation with it.
.jpg?w=600)
