Seven in ten people think the papers regularly publish false information

The resignation of the BBC’s director general and CEO of news is only the latest symptom of a deeper malaise in the media , a crisis of trust that runs through broadcasters and newspapers alike.

The leaked BBC file, splashed across the newspapers, may make for eye-catching headlines, but it hardly tells the whole story. To ignore the press’s own credibility problem is, at best, selective outrage.

The truth is that the erosion of trust is not confined to the public broadcaster. It’s a reckoning the entire media industry must face.

New YouGov polling shows that public confidence in the press is low, and concern about accountability is widespread.

The survey was commissioned by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP). The PRP (of which I am a board member) is an independent body set up in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry. Its role is “to ensure that regulators of the UK Press are independent, properly funded and able to protect the public”.

The public perceives serious ongoing problems in press practices. Most (at least six in ten) believe the press blur news and opinion, publishing false or misleading stories, exaggerating just to get attention and failing to represent people or groups fairly. Many feel that despite reforms after the phone hacking scandal and subsequent Leveson Inquiry, misinformation and unfair reporting are becoming more common.

There is also a strong sense that power and privilege shape press behaviour. Four in five think politicians and wealthy individuals exert significant influence, that informal deals for favourable coverage are commonplace. Six in ten believe that politicians often avoid challenging the press to stay on good terms.

People see a clear imbalance in whose voices are heard. Four in five respondents believe complaints from the rich are taken seriously, while few think the same is true for ordinary members of the public.

Only about one in five would even know how to complain about unfair or inaccurate reporting. Just as few believe an ordinary person could expect a correction to be made, in stark contrast to the likelihood of action for a politician or celebrity.

Given these concerns, it’s no surprise that the polling found strong public backing for genuinely independent press regulation. Around four in five people think major news outlets, including newspapers, magazines and online publishers, should be regulated.

Most favour an independent system free from both government and industry control. Support for an industry-run model of press self regulation – currently used by most national newspapers – is just 3%.

Who regulates the press?

While BBC broadcasting and other broadcasters are regulated by Ofcom, newspapers and their websites are largely exempted from this kind of regulatory oversight. The regulatory landscape responsible for overseeing news publishers is fractured, and can’t hold the whole industry to account.

The story of press regulation in the UK today begins with the News International group phone hacking scandal in 2011. The revelation that the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler had been hacked by journalists from the News of the World newspaper had a knock-on effect on the police investigation. Editors and journalists were prosecuted, and the scandal resulted in the paper’s closure.

But revelations of further phone hacking of dozens of celebrities, politicians and royals also came under public scrutiny. There are still ongoing court cases related to phone hacking against the Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.

The 2012 Leveson Inquiry was established to investigate the culture and practices of the press following the scandal.

Taking account of concerns about press freedom and independence from government, Lord Justice Leveson recommended a framework for an independent, self-regulatory body for the press.

This framework was put into a royal charter, which created the Press Recognition Panel to oversee the industry’s self-regulation. The alternative would have been a statutory regulator similar to Ofcom.

To date, Impress (the Independent Monitor for the Press) is the only independent self-regulator approved under this system. It oversees 231 publications, including The Conversation UK.

In 2014, most national newspapers together established a trade complaint body: the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso). Ipso showed no interest in applying for recognition from PRP as an approved independent regulator. Some broadsheets, including the Guardian and Financial Times, declined to participate, referring to Ipso as a “flawed regulator”. Instead, they set up their own independent complaints systems.

Ipso was intended to replace the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which was discredited for its close connection with publishers. Ipso was supposed to avoid its predecessor’s shortcomings.

But it ended up mirroring the PCC structure, in that it is controlled by the very newspapers and publishers it regulates. As such, it was dismissed by the National Union of Journalists in the UK as a “pointless so-called regulator”, who instead endorsed Impress.

By contrast, Impress has been so far compliant with the Leveson recommendations and the criteria set in the Royal Charter for an independent press regulator.

Read more: What a decade of research reveals about why people don't trust media in the digital age

The public’s frustration reflected in the YouGov polling, over the lack of accountability and the perception of the press’s tendency to publish false or misleading stories, exaggerate just to get attention and not represent people or groups fairly, should not be downplayed. Arguably, the lack of a clear regulatory structure has contributed to the decline in trust in the press.

Independent regulation of the press under the PRP-recognised system offers the public real protection from press harm. A truly independent regulatory body, free from both government and industry influence, protects free speech and doesn’t threaten it.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Zahera Harb, City St George's, University of London

Read more:

• BBC bias? The Prescott memo falls well short of the standards of impartiality it demands
• What a decade of research reveals about why people don’t trust media in the digital age
• After resignations at the top, the BBC faces a defining test: what does impartiality mean now?

Zahera Harb is board member of the Press Recognition Panel (PRP)