Press regulation exists to protect both the public and journalists. In an age of misinformation and mistrust, it acts like a kite mark, signalling a commitment to ethical standards, transparency, and accountability.
But how did the UK arrive at its current press regulation framework? From scandal-led inquiries to today’s independent regulators, here’s a look at how press regulation has evolved, and why it matters.
Following on from our previous article about why press regulation matters, which is part of a series of articles to help support media literacy, here’s a deeper look at the UK’s press regulators and how they work to increase journalism standards.
Read: Why press regulation matters: How it helps protect trust in journalism
Why was press regulation introduced?
Before formal regulation, large parts of the press operated with minimal oversight. Tabloid culture in particular drew criticism for sensationalism, inaccuracy, and unethical practices, especially in the 1990s and early 2000s.
The Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which replaced the Press Council in 1991, was a self-regulatory body with limited powers. It relied on cooperation rather than enforcement and often failed to act decisively.
Critics said it protected publishers more than the public.
Mounting public pressure for change came to a head in the early 2010s when widespread press misconduct was exposed.
The Leveson Inquiry: A turning point
The trigger for the Leveson Inquiry was the phone hacking scandal involving News of the World journalists, including the hacking of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler’s voicemail. The scandal revealed deep flaws in how the press was being held to account.
Launched in 2011, this independent inquiry examined press behaviour, the failure of existing regulatory systems, and the relationships between media, police, and politicians.
Lord Justice Leveson’s final report, published in 2012, called for a new, independent regulator with real powers to investigate complaints and enforce standards.
The inquiry laid bare the need for a press regulation system that balanced freedom of the press with protection of the public.
Read: Leveson Inquiry – Report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press (Gov.uk)
The birth of IPSO and Impress
Following Leveson’s recommendations, two new regulatory bodies were formed:
- IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation): Replaced the PCC in 2014. The newspaper industry funds it and uses their Editors’ Code of Practice. Many legacy national and regional titles are members.
- Impress: Established as a fully independent regulator with no ties to media owners. It is Leveson-compliant and recognised under Royal Charter. Impress is often chosen by smaller, digital-first, and community-based publishers who want to demonstrate their commitment to robust, ethical journalism. It enforces a strict Standards Code and offers a robust, transparent complaints process.
Are publications required to be regulated?
Press regulation in the UK is entirely voluntary. Publishers are free to choose whether or not to be regulated, and if so, by whom.
A publication’s decision to be regulated sends a clear message: they are willing to be held accountable, follow a formal code of conduct, and participate in an external complaints process. It’s a public declaration that they take journalistic standards seriously.
While unregulated outlets may still correct errors or respond to feedback, they are not required to follow a set code, nor are they answerable to an independent body. For readers, this means fewer guarantees around fairness, accuracy, or transparency.
Put simply, choosing regulation is a sign of credibility. Choosing not to be regulated may say just as much about a publication’s approach to journalistic standards.
IPSO vs Impress: What’s the difference?
Here’s a simple comparison of the UK’s two main press regulators:
| Feature | IPSO | Impress |
|---|---|---|
| Funding | Newspaper industry | Independent, public interest support |
| Standards Code | Editors’ Code of Practice | Impress Standards Code |
| Regulatory independence | Industry-controlled | Independent board |
| Arbitration service | Optional (limited use) | Free and binding for regulated members |
| Members | Most national/regional papers | Community-focused, digital-first outlets |
| Statutory recognition | No | Yes (Leveson-compliant) |
What powers do IPSO and Impress have?
Before choosing who to trust for your news, it’s important to understand not just how each regulator is structured, but also what powers they actually have to enforce standards.
| Power or Function | IPSO | Impress |
|---|---|---|
| Corrections and adjudications | Can require a publication to publish corrections or adjudications. | Can require members to publish corrections, adjudications, or apologies. |
| Investigations | Can investigate serious breaches | Can independently launch investigations into systemic failures or serious code breaches. |
| Binding arbitration | Optional | Free and binding arbitration is available for all complainants. |
| Fines | Can impose fines up to £1 million | Can impose fines up to £1 million |
| Standards enforcement | Enforces the Editors’ Code | Enforces the Impress Standards Code |
| Statutory recognition | Not recognised under Royal Charter. | Recognised under Royal Charter as Leveson-compliant. |
| Accountability to public interest | Industry-led; governance includes publishers. | Independent board with no ties to media owners. |
Press regulation is not about restricting journalism, it’s about raising standards, promoting transparency, and protecting the public. In a media environment where trust is fragile, it helps readers understand which news sources are willing to be held accountable.
At Progress Publishing, we’ve been regulated by Impress since 5 November 2018. It’s our way of showing our readers that we stand for ethical journalism, open dialogue, and professional accountability. Because trust isn’t automatic, it’s earned.
This article is part of a series of articles to help support media literacy.
