Freedom of speech gives the press extraordinary privileges. But those privileges come with responsibility.
That principle came into sharp focus on 30 April 2025 when David Davis MP launched a blistering attack on the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in the House of Commons. He accused the complaints handler of trying to muzzle Parliamentary speech after it ruled against The Daily Telegraph over an article that claimed the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Telegraph based this serious allegation on comments made by Michael Gove under Parliamentary Privilege. Davis used that same privilege to stand up in Parliament and claim that IPSO was undermining press freedom.
What the IPSO ruling actually said
IPSO found that The Telegraph had breached its code by failing to include MAB’s response to the allegation, despite its serious nature. Without that context, it said readers could be misled into thinking the allegation was “unchallenged” and “accepted”.
Although the newspaper amended the online version of the article following a complaint by MAB, it did not publish a correction online or in print outlining the complainant’s position. IPSO said it should have done both.
Crucially, IPSO is not an Approved Regulator under the Royal Charter framework. The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) has no direct involvement in this case. However, the broader principle is one we care deeply about: what freedom of speech truly means in practice, and whom it is intended to serve.
What is press freedom for?
The press often invokes freedom of speech to defend its actions. It is a vital principle, they say, that enables them to hold power to account. And they are right.
A free press is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. As the oversight body set up to uphold both public protection and freedom of speech in the press, the PRP supports this wholeheartedly. Freedom of speech gives the press the space to expose wrongdoing, challenge those in power, and report in the public interest – even when it is uncomfortable to do so.
But freedom of speech is not a blank cheque. It exists to justify necessary breaches of editorial standards for the public good, not to excuse poor standards or evade accountability.
The responsibilities that come with press privileges
Journalists enjoy legal protections that go beyond those available to the general public. These protections are not meant to serve the press themselves, but to serve the public through them.
With such privileges come real responsibilities: to act fairly, to be accurate, and to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what merely interests the public.
When that distinction breaks down, so does trust in journalism.
When press freedom is misused
We have all seen how algorithms on social media platforms prioritise engagement over accuracy, rewarding outrage, conspiracy, and sensationalism.
But some news publishers operate in much the same space. Their business models are built on attention, not trust. They prioritise clicks and advertising revenue over clarity and truth. They tell you what they think you want to hear, not what you need to know.
That is not how press freedom is meant to work.
Are some newsrooms becoming PR machines?
Reporting on Parliamentary proceedings is essential, but there is a difference between reporting and repeating.
When politically charged statements are parroted without scrutiny – whether true or not – we must ask: is this journalism, or is it public relations?
One recent analysis of political reporting noted that “no evidence was provided” has become one of the most frequently used phrases in media coverage. It is often a stand-in for proper scrutiny – creating the appearance of balance without actually challenging misinformation or interrogating the source.
A popular podcast recently described this as a “PR virus” infecting our politics, with parts of the media acting as “messaging echo chambers”. The concern is not hypothetical. It is happening.
The growing risk of AI-amplified misinformation
AI compounds the danger. News publishers now have the tools to flood the internet with content that reinforces their version of events. They can optimise articles to influence what AI summarises, recommends, or surfaces in search, much like digital marketers have long done through SEO.
In an age where AI is shaping what people read and believe, unregulated or unaccountable publishers can distort reality on an unprecedented scale.
A call for real accountability
Now more than ever, we need a press that remembers what its freedom is for.
We need to draw a clearer distinction between publishers that serve the public by reporting truthfully, challenging power, and upholding standards, and those that serve politicians or shareholders, trading influence, and avoiding scrutiny.
There is a solution. It is called independent regulation. It is called membership of an approved, Leveson-compliant press regulator – which IPSO is not.
The system has been in place for more than a decade, and it works. But too many publishers and politicians choose to ignore it. Why? Because it suits them. It allows them to trade access and influence without being held to account.
It is time to put principles into practice
If we truly believe in press freedom and its value in a democracy, then we must also believe in the systems that protect it. That means a regulator that is independent, effective, and open to all.
Freedom of speech is not a shield for sloppy journalism or political spin. It is a principle that demands high standards, not just loud voices.
If politicians and publishers care about protecting it, then they need to support the system designed to uphold it. That means standing behind independent regulation, not avoiding it.
In the end, freedom of speech only protects the public when it is exercised with integrity – and held to account.
