The problem with IPSO? It’s a regulator for a world of paper

Sir Alan Moses promises that IPSO will be “rigorous, independent, fair and transparent” – and you can’t say fairer than that, writes Raymond Snoddy. There remain, however, a few problems.

You could be entirely forgiven for failing to notice that IPSO, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, opened its doors for business this week in the same building as its predecessor.

The trouble is, news is always relative and there are just a few other things for the papers to concentrate on – Ukraine, Isis, Scottish independence and a Royal baby.

Do you remember the glory days when press regulation dominated the headlines and Lord Justice Leveson stepped out of the gloom and became a household name for a week or two?

Alas, his over-long report published two years ago never became a best seller and the first layers of dust have started to gather.

Looking through the perspective of history we can see just how serious the potential consequences were of a David Cameron rush of blood to the head. A knee-jerk reaction to a real problem, an open-ended inquiry leading off into the landscape in all directions capable of posing God-knows-what threats to freedom of expression. But it was a big bold statement.

A bit reminiscent really of Cameron’s wheeze on Scottish independence. There could have been a modest proposal giving the Scots real options – no, yes and maybe, or devolution max as it was more technically known. For goodness sake, the Scots Nats were actually baying for devolution max and would have gone away happy for a decade or two with their gains.

But Cameron went for big Nay or Aye and we can all now see that as a result, over-emotional Scots have been backed into a corner with potentially disastrous consequences.

There were also big moments along the way in the press regulation debate. Do you remember that great speech from the Prime Minister in the House of Commons about not crossing the Rubicon? Or should that now be the River Tay?

The great things about political crises is that there are always more coming along and there is nothing so whiskery as an old political crisis.

How can IPSO ever manage to compete with Isis or independence for public attention?

But just every once in a while, we should pause and consider the implications of a nearly forgotten issue, and tie it up neatly with ribbons.

Now instead of Brian we have got Alan, as in Sir Alan Moses, and even his opponents begrudgingly admit he might be a retired judge of independent mind who will soon also have new premises once the lease is sorted out. No getting away from the word independent these days, although Hacked Off are still convinced he will be little more than a creature of the newspaper industry.

Sir Alan promises that IPSO will be “rigorous, independent, fair and transparent” and has asked to be judged by results. You can’t say fairer than that.

There remain, however, a few problems.

It was seen as a serious blow when Richard Desmond, the owner of the Daily Express, pulled out of the Press Complaints Commission for reasons too obscure and eccentric to recall.

Press regulation had to cover the entire newspaper and magazine industry. You couldn’t pick and choose.

Now the successor body is setting sail, without three newspaper groups on board, even though none of them are known for disturbing the boundaries of public taste and there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Financial Times, The Guardian or The Independent have ever hacked a single phone.

The FT has upped and gone and set up its own regulatory system under the barrister Greg Callus who helped out Lord Justice Leveson.

Maybe that was the solution staring us in the face all along: a regulator for every newspaper (and just think of all the work it would provide for retired lawyers.)

IPSO can survive without the FT, which at its heart is a business-to-business publication.

It would be much more serious if both The Guardian and The Independent declared independence from IPSO.

The Independent is still talking to the organisation about the detail and The Guardian is still waiting to see whether Sir Alan can reform “some of the governance issues that still cause anxiety.”

Both should just say “yes” for the greater good of the newspaper industry, which has problems enough to worry about without niggles about the finer points of press regulation.

Anyway, all this talk of press regulation seems more than a bit theological in the age of the Internet and the continuing decline in paper circulations.

One of the greatest flaws in the Leveson report was the little weight given to the rise of the Internet and the resulting effect on the economics of the business.

Was it one page out of nearly 2,000 devoted to the issue, which presumably he saw as outside his remit, when it actually should have been at the heart of everything he did?

IPSO, too, sounds like a regulator for a world of paper when the future of the news business clearly lies increasingly online.

Doubtless Sir Alan will, before long, share his thoughts on how you regulate the Internet.

The really good news is that because of the Scottish independence issue, Isis, the Ukraine and the Royal baby, IPSO will have the opportunity to establish itself and develop far from the public gaze because few people care.

Press regulation is no longer even a third tier issue and the threat of a second Leveson inquiry after the criminal trials and appeals are over has already been quietly forgotten.

The troglodytes of Hacked Off will continue to mount occasional demonstrations but their time is past.

The hope now is that David Cameron’s other rush of blood to the head – the Scottish referendum – will produce a No vote, however narrow, and we can happily move on to the next crisis and a new set of headlines.

MediaTel will be hosting a debate on the Future of National Newspapers on 29 September, with panellists including Trinity Mirror’s James Wildman, Telegraph Media Group’s Jim Freeman and the Independent and Evening Standard’s Chris Blackhurst. See our events page for details.