More than a decade on from the Leveson Inquiry, the British public remains unconvinced that its lessons were ever truly learned.
New YouGov research commissioned by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) shows that people believe many of the same problems persist.
Six in ten think that false or misleading reporting, as well as the unfair treatment of individuals and groups, are becoming more common.
Four in five say the press pays attention to complaints from the rich and powerful, while only one in four thinks it listens to ordinary members of the public.
These are not abstract opinions about history. They’re a verdict on how the press operates today. Yet these findings have received little attention from the very institutions they concern most. That silence speaks volumes.
If the press is confident it has changed, it should be just as confident in confronting what the public actually thinks – even when the verdict is uncomfortable.
As chair of the PRP, the independent body set up after Leveson to ensure that any press regulator is genuinely free from both government and industry control, I strongly believe in freedom of expression and a free press. Those principles are not at odds with accountability. In fact, they depend on it.
Last week’s parliamentary debate on the new Hillsborough Law was a stark reminder of why these issues matter. Margaret Aspinall, who has led the Hillsborough families’ campaign for decades, told the Liverpool Echo that justice for the 97 will not be complete until the media is held to account for its role in state failures and cover-ups.
Cross-party MPs pointed out that the system of press accountability remains largely unchanged since Leveson, calling instead for stronger, genuinely independent regulation. The public, it seems, agree.
More than half say press regulation should be independent of government and industry
Our polling shows that while four in five people support regulation for all major news outlets, only 3% back an industry-run body such as IPSO.
More than half (54%) want regulation that’s independent of both government and the press industry. They’re asking for genuine independence free from both political influence and commercial self-interest.
That finding should be uncomfortable for anyone who has insisted that the status quo is good enough. The public know the difference between independence in name and independence in practice.
That distinction matters. Even IPSO’s own commissioned polling of MPs, conducted by YouGov, found overwhelming support for an ‘independent press regulator’. But the question only asked about independence from government, not from the press itself. When ‘independent’ can mean whatever suits the industry, the public are right to ask who it’s really independent from.
Our survey shows why this matters. Around eight in ten respondents believe politicians and wealthy individuals have major influence over the press. Three-quarters think informal ‘deals’ are made for favourable coverage or political advantage.
It’s tempting to dismiss these as perceptions, but trust in journalism remains fragile, and perception is what sustains it. When the public no longer believe that standards are improving, the damage is the same as if they weren’t.
A free press is vital to any democracy, but its strength rests on credibility, which in turn rests on independence. When people believe the press answers to power rather than the public, society is weaker for it.
For ordinary people harmed by the press, little seems to have changed since the Leveson Inquiry first heard from victims. In my role, I regularly hear from people who face press intrusion and unfair treatment. Most don’t have the means of someone like Prince Harry, who can afford to take on the press when wronged.
Four in five people surveyed believe the press listens when rich people complain, while only one in four says the same for the general public. Just one in five thinks they would ever see a false story about them corrected.
That’s not meaningful accountability. Most people say they wouldn’t even know where to complain about a story they thought was unfair or inaccurate. The right to seek redress shouldn’t depend on wealth or status – yet the public can see that, in practice, it still does.
The solution already exists. Following the Leveson Inquiry, a system was established to ensure that any press regulator could demonstrate its genuine independence and accountability to the public. The PRP was established to oversee the system – to ensure independence, not to regulate the press.
It works where it’s used, but successive governments have reneged on pledges to back it, and most of the press have chosen not to participate as a result.
We can’t go on pretending the lessons of Leveson were learned. The public haven’t been fooled. With people increasingly turning to unregulated sources for news, misinformation is spreading faster than ever. Independence isn’t optional – it’s what keeps a free press trusted and strong.
It’s time for the industry, government, and regulators to listen to what the public is saying – and act on it.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
