In case you overlooked it, Tuesday marked the first birthday of the Press Recognition Panel (PRP), the body created under royal charter to oversee press regulation.
Its task is to “recognise” and approve press regulators that meet the charter’s 29 criteria. Foremost among them is that a regulator should be independent of the publishers it regulates.
So, given that the only working regulator at present is the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), it’s a moot point about whether it would satisfy that first criterion.
On the other hand, whether it does or doesn’t is largely irrelevant because Ipso’s funders, the overwhelming majority of Britain’s newspaper and magazine publishers, have set their face against seeking charter recognition.
In its birthday statement, the PRP reminded publishers that if they are not members of an approved regulator they “face the threat of exemplary damages in privacy and libel cases.”
It pointed to a recent speech by culture secretary John Whittingdale in which he restated the government’s commitment to the charter and its recognition system.
But it had to admit also that Whittingdale “is holding back” on introducing so-called cost-shifting measures that will mean unapproved publishers having to pay the legal costs for people who sue them for libel, invasions of privacy or harassment, whether they win or lose their cases.
By contrast, publishers signed up to approved regulators will be protected from the costs of any claims brought against them in court. Approved regulators will have set up an arbitration system in order to avoid costly trials.
On the horizon is the creation of a regulator, Impress, that is expected to seek charter recognition. However, its structures are still being created by its director, Jonathan Heawood, and no publisher has become a member thus far.
Several major daily titles (and their Sunday stablemates) - the Guardian, the Independent, the i, the Financial Times and London Evening Standard - have not signed up with Ipso and have also let it be known that they will not join a body seeking charter recognition.
In such circumstances, I’m not certain whether wishing the PRP a happy birthday is really appropriate.
Source: PRP
