The House Article | Democracy depends on a trusted press but self-regulation isn’t working

4 min read8 min

Citizens can only make good decisions if they have access to accurate information and honest debate. When powerful media organisations or social media platforms spread misinformation, distort facts, or promote one-sided narratives without accountability, democracy itself begins to weaken.

Today, a small number of wealthy individuals and corporations own much of the media. Social media platforms use algorithms that reward outrage and sensationalism. Falsehoods can reach millions within hours, while corrections receive a fraction of the attention.

Democracy depends on disagreement. But the danger is that many people are making important political decisions based on information that is incomplete, misleading or untrue.

Advertisement

Take the issue of the net number of migrants: a recent poll by British Future found that 49 per cent believe it has increased in the past year. In fact, it fell by half in the last 12 months.

On welfare spending, the prevailing media narrative is that there is such a large number of unemployed and disabled people that things have become unsustainable. However, in reality, around half of welfare expenditure is spent supporting pensioners through the state pension and related benefits. UK welfare spending is in line with most EU countries.

Perhaps the greatest concern is that many voters never hear about important government policies at all.

Polling conducted by Lord Ashcroft suggested that public awareness of several major government policies was surprisingly low. This all raises an important question: who holds the media itself accountable?

The Leveson Inquiry heard evidence over many months before recommending the creation of an independent regulatory system for the press. Although the recommendations received cross-party support, they were never fully implemented.

Instead, most national newspapers are members of a body created and controlled by the newspaper industry itself. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) relies on a standards code written by newspaper editors. Its rules are set by a committee of newspaper executives, which has not fined a single newspaper in its entire existence.

As an ex-MP, I have first-hand experience of just how devastating this can be. One mother (Mandy Garner) described how footage of her 20-year-old daughter’s fatal road traffic collision was published online by Mail Online. The story was headlined ‘EXCLUSIVE’. The video would play automatically on mobile devices. She believed the publication was an intrusion into grief, and that the footage had been used as clickbait.

When she complained to IPSO, what followed was six months in which IPSO relayed her points to the Mail and the Mail defended what it had done. They even suggested she drop the case. After six months, IPSO ruled in the newspaper’s favour. Its reasons included that the footage wasn’t clear enough to identify her daughter and that it had been edited to end before the moment of impact. I can’t think of a better illustration of just how dysfunctional the current regulatory system is. IPSO is not fit for purpose and needs to be urgently replaced.

Public confidence depends upon people believing that complaints will be investigated fairly, independently and transparently.

This debate is not about restricting free speech. A free press is one of the foundations of any democracy. Journalists must remain free to investigate governments, expose corruption and challenge those in power.

However, freedom and accountability are not opposites. Doctors, lawyers, and MPs are all expected to meet independently administered professional standards. Given the influence of media organisations and social media companies, it is reasonable to ask whether similar independent accountability should exist for those who shape public opinion. The age of social media has only exacerbated the problem, with falsities spreading faster than facts.

If democracy is to remain healthy, citizens must be able to trust that public debate is rooted in evidence rather than manipulation. That means ensuring that those with the greatest power to influence public opinion are also subject to transparency and accountability.

Without reform, I fear the divide between perception and reality will continue to widen. Trust in our institutions will erode further, public debate will become increasingly polarised, and democracy itself will become weaker.

Lord Watts is a Labour peer and a former chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party