Press Recognition Panel says IPSO not protecting the public

The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) has found that ‘mainstream’ press ‘regulator’ IPSO does not fulfil its main job. Or, at least, the main official reason for its existence. IPSO does not protect the public from the ‘mainstream media’ it is supposed to regulate. In fact, it’s not even really a regulator.

The PRP is the royal-chartered body:

set up to ensure that regulators of the press and other news publishers are independent, properly funded and able to protect the public

It is the only organisation authorised to approve ‘Leveson-compliant’ press regulators. The Canary is regulated by IMPRESS, so far the only compliant regulator. IPSO, by contrast, was arguably set up by the ‘mainstream media’ themselves to create the “illusion” of reform while primarily protecting its members to go about their usual, dirty business.

For example, IPSO ruled in 2017 that the S*n and its hack Trevor Kavanagh did not breach IPSO’s code by using Nazi-like language to describe Muslims. The UK’s supposed “Muslim problem”. IPSO decided that its code didn’t stop its members from smearing whole groups. Instead it’s only a problem if an individual is named. Nothing has changed.

IPSO: not even a regulator

As the PRP outlines in a statement on its new report, IPSO does not fulfil the functions of a regulator and has never used its main powers, despite massive numbers of complaints from the public:

The report examines recent IPSO rulings involving privacy, victims of crime, grieving families, children, and the justice system, drawing on the latest published complaints data, rulings, annual reports, and statements from IPSO. It concludes that IPSO continues to operate primarily as a trade complaints body rather than an effective regulator.

The PRP continued:

IPSO investigates only a small proportion of the complaints it receives, has never used its strongest powers to launch a standards investigation or impose a fine, and cannot require publishers to issue an apology.

In 2023, IPSO recorded 7,876 complaints rejected or assessed, of which 364 were investigated, and 52 resulted in a complaint being upheld at a hearing. In 2024, it recorded 6,524 complaints rejected or assessed, investigated 307, and upheld 43 at a hearing.

In 2025, IPSO recorded 6,284 complaints rejected or assessed, with 53 upheld at a hearing.

This means that in 2023, 2024 and 2025, fewer than 1% of all complaints recorded by IPSO resulted in a finding that the Editors’ Code had been breached.

And, damningly:

IPSO reported an increase in investigated complaints in 2025, but this figure included 191 complaints recorded as “not lead”, a category not included in previous years’ figures. Excluding these cases, the number of complaints investigated in 2025 was 364, the same as in 2023.

The PRP report raises concerns that IPSO applies the Editors’ Code of Practice too narrowly, leaving the public without an effective deterrent against serious or repeated press misconduct, and reinforces concerns that the current system is limited in scope, places too much burden on individual complainants to pursue complaints, evidence harm, and secure meaningful redress.

It gets worse

But IPSO’s official figures are just the tip of an iceberg that’s probably at least five times bigger than what is reported:

Recent polling and research suggest complaint numbers may understate the level of public concern. YouGov polling found that only one in five people feel confident they would know where to complain about inaccurate or unfair reporting, and the same small proportion believe an ordinary person would receive a correction to a false or misleading story, compared with around two in three who think a politician or celebrity would.

PRP chair Kathryn Cearns said that IPSO is doing nothing significant to address the “ongoing” harm perpetrated on innocent people by the so-called ‘mainstream’ press:

An effective press regulator must do more than process complaints. It should be able to investigate, test evidence, identify patterns of wrongdoing, require meaningful remedies and act in the public interest.

Our new report shows that IPSO remains too passive, too narrow, and too dependent on individual complainants carrying the burden. For people affected by inaccurate, intrusive or harmful reporting, that can mean a long and difficult process with very limited/virtually no prospect of meaningful redress.

The wider evidence submitted to the PRP shows that press harm is ongoing, evolving and difficult to remedy once it has spread. Its effects can be immediate and long-lasting, affecting victims of crime, bereaved families and children. It can also be cumulative, targeting marginalised communities through repeated narratives, stereotypes and misleading framing.

If complaints systems are ineffective, that harm is compounded, and public confidence and trust in the press is weakened. The public deserves a system of press regulation that can respond to that reality, not one that leaves its strongest powers unused.”

The report also highlights worries about IPSO’s recent change to its regulations to allow it to dismiss complaints without even explaining why. The PRP is calling for publishers to join an actual regulator. Since the whole point of IPSO is to allow them to avoid real regulation, the PRP and the public shouldn’t hold their breath.

Featured image via the Canary