{"id":1231,"date":"2016-03-09T10:30:00","date_gmt":"2016-03-09T10:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsmediauk.org\/nma-why-impress-should-not-be-granted-recognition-as-an-approved-press-regulator\/"},"modified":"2024-05-03T10:14:35","modified_gmt":"2024-05-03T09:14:35","slug":"nma-why-impress-should-not-be-granted-recognition-as-an-approved-press-regulator","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsmediauk.org\/blog\/2016\/03\/09\/nma-why-impress-should-not-be-granted-recognition-as-an-approved-press-regulator\/","title":{"rendered":"NMA: Why IMPRESS Should Not Be Granted\u00a0Recognition As An Approved Press Regulator"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a 45-page response to the Press Recognition Panel’s call for information<\/a>, the News Media Association explains that it would be irrational for the PRP to recognise IMPRESS as a regulator and that doing so would not help to create an effective regulator. It would, however, unfairly impose on the vast majority of UK publishers a system of penalties in circumstances that were never intended.<\/p>\n

The submission sets out why the NMA considers that the IMPRESS application to the PRP fails to meet most of the key recognition criteria set down in the Royal Charter. It is unrepresentative of the press as a whole, it relies for its funding on a single wealthy donor Max Mosley, it has no editorial code of standards and it cannot be described as independent, credible or effective.<\/p>\n

 “For those reasons it would be unreasonable, irrational, unfair and unlawful for the PRP to confer recognition on IMPRESS,” says the NMA.<\/p>\n

The Leveson Report made clear that a self-regulatory system would not be credible unless it attracted major publishers and the widest possible cross-section of the news media. It said: “I therefore recommend that a new system of regulation should not be considered sufficiently effective if it does not cover all significant news publishers.”<\/p>\n

Under the terms of the Royal Charter, if the PRP does recognise IMPRESS, it will be obliged to inform Parliament in six months’ time that the system of regulation it has recognised does not cover all significant publishers. In fact, it covers no significant publishers, only a handful of hyperlocal publishers who may not even be relevant publishers as defined by the Royal Charter.<\/p>\n

The IMPRESS arbitration scheme is neither fair nor inexpensive for publishers. It poses very little financial risk to claimants and is therefore likely to encourage anyone with an arguable civil claim to go down the arbitration route rather than the complaints route. This will lead to a proliferation of claims which will in turn impose a serious costs burden on publishers, particularly those with insufficient resources to meet the fees, legal costs and damages.<\/p>\n

The NMA submission summarises why the news media industry believes IMPRESS does not merit recognition as an approved regulator:<\/p>\n