Following Mr Bates vs the Post Office, there was a national outcry in the press about the shocking injustice done to sub-postmasters, sharp finger-pointing in the Post Office itself, and a collective wringing of hands across the establishment more generally to speed up redress for victims.
A year on, The Hack airs, telling a true and meticulously researched story of widespread criminality in parts of the press, powerful people abusing their positions, and the systematic cover-ups that followed. And yet there was barely a whisper of it in the press. The Sun couldn’t even bring itself to print a single-sentence description in its TV listings – just the title, the time, and the word ‘New’.
No headlines demanding accountability. No political outrage. No reflection on the families harmed – not just politicians or celebrities, but ordinary people caught up in horrifying events beyond their control. The families of missing and murdered children. The families of British servicemen who lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Victims of terrorism. People thrust unwillingly and undeservedly into the news spotlight and left to deal with the consequences.
But, of course, we’d had the Leveson Inquiry. Cross-party agreement. A bold new system of press self-regulation operating independently of government and industry. Lessons were learned. History wouldn’t repeat itself. Problem solved. Right?
Only it wasn’t. The new system – the Recognition System – was never allowed to operate as intended. It exists, yes, but a large section of the press, including all the national newspapers, refused to engage and continue to snub it to this day. And successive governments rolled over, adopting ever softer policy positions until, now, there is effectively no meaningful policy on press accountability at all.
You have to read Government statements carefully to spot the shift:
‘The Leveson Inquiry led to the establishment of a strengthened, self-regulatory system for the press, this includes the creation of the Press Recognition Panel, by Royal Charter.’
A long sentence in which only one word matters: ‘includes’.
The press regulatory landscape does indeed ‘include’ the Recognition System. Over 200 news publishers have joined Impress – the only Approved Regulator – which continues to demonstrate that it handles complaints independently, fairly, and transparently, and is committed to upholding freedom of speech while protecting the public from press harm.
But a large number haven’t. They’ve either joined the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) – an industry-controlled body that is neither independent nor responsible for the standards it claims to enforce – or operate their own in-house standards and complaints schemes. And an unknown number have no standards codes or complaints schemes at all.
What we have is not a single ‘system’ of press regulation but a patchwork of accountability. A mix-and-match model where news publishers choose the level of accountability they find most convenient for commercial or political gain.
And this is the sleight of hand:
It looks like accountability exists.
It looks like the issues of the past have been fixed.
But beyond Impress, it’s an illusion.
And recent research proves the illusion works. Polling reveals that 63% of people assume print news publishers are regulated, but only one in five knows where to file a complaint. Focus groups echo the same.
Fool me once, the saying goes. But these patterns of denial, delay, and distraction continue to emerge. Press harm persists, while meaningful avenues of accountability remain unclear to most of the public.
The historic victims of phone hacking deserve better. So do the people suffering press harm today – those wrongly accused of murder, those whose loved ones’ deaths are turned into clickbait, those subjected to relentless intrusion during the worst moments of their lives.
And with no incentives for accountability beyond ethical obligation, the risk of further press harm remains.
Magicians at least warn you they’re about to trick you, and they do it for entertainment. In a press environment shaped by commercial pressures and political relationships, the appearance of accountability masks the absence of real safeguards. What looks like a functioning system, in practice leaves the public unprotected. And when the illusion benefits powerful interests at the expense of ordinary people, where’s the fun in that?
The government has the ability to strengthen the system the Leveson Inquiry recommended, and Parliament overwhelmingly voted for more than a decade ago – a proven system designed to protect the public while upholding press freedom. Doing so would require revisiting the policy decisions that have prevented the agreed framework from operating as intended, ensuring that accountability is back in the room across the industry – no magic wand required.
