 Association Limited, are registered companies, which suggests that they do operate as a business.
As regards exemptions, the same position applies to local parties as it does to national parties. Their publications may relate to a particular trade, hobby, pastime, industry or profession, but the news content of newsletters or websites is not included incidentally, it is a significant and probably essential component of the publication.
It appears to have been the government’s intention to exclude at least local political parties’ newsletters. Maria Miller gave assurances to Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg concerning their status[20] and yet for this to be borne out in practice, such publishers will have to rely on the court to make very generous interpretations of either the term ‘in the course of a business’ or the word ‘incidental’.
Campaign groups regularly publish news-related material both in print and online. A visit to Amnesty International’s website at the time of writing told readers about a ‘Spiral of Abuses’ in Thailand and ‘Evidence of War Crimes’ in Ukraine.[21] This type of information, along with material published by campaign groups such as Global Witness, Index on Censorship and Which? is clearly news-related for the purposes of the Act. It is written by multiple authors and edited and, although these organisations operate on a not-for-profit basis, their publications are produced ‘in the course of a business’. Furthermore, many do not appear to be exempt by virtue of Schedule 15 which exempts a ‘public body or charity that publishes news-related material in connection with the carrying out of its functions’[22] because of the structure of the organisations.
Small multi-author blogs are not relevant for the purposes of the Act.[25] The term ‘blog’ is not defined in the Act (deliberately so[26] though this seems strange given that the apparently self-explanatory term ‘multi-author’ is). The term is to be given its ordinary meaning it seems. Definitions differ, from a ‘regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style’[27] to ‘a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries (“posts”) typically displayed in reverse chronological order’.[28] Lord McNally described a blog as being primarily for ‘the expression of opinions, comments or personal experiences by an individual or group of individuals’.[29] For the government this appears to be what sets blogs apart from online newspapers, and therefore excludes them (so long as they remain micro-businesses) from the class of relevant publisher. Yet the definition of news-related material – the central issue of concern to relevant publishers – includes the publication of ‘opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs’.[30] The government’s logic in excluding bloggers but not other small, news-related publications is therefore baffling.
To qualify for this exemption, the multi-author blogs must also be a micro-business, having fewer than ten employees and a turnover of less than £2,000,000.[31] This will mean that small groups of individuals that produce blogs concerning local, national or international news are excluded from the definition of a relevant publisher.
Blogs such as www.blogpreston.co.uk may not be considered ‘relevant’ for the purposes of the Act. It is a website that reports local news, with posts listed in reverse chronological order and several local contributors (but not employees). It contains some opinion, but primarily reports news in a neutral way. Yet it is clearly styled as a blog.
The lack of clarity surrounding the definition of blogs, and whether they are exempt from being relevant publications, can be seen if Blogpreston is compared to the Brixton Blog, which styles itself as ‘Brixton’s online newspaper’ and is organised more like a traditional local paper’s website, with sections on news, what’s on, features and sport. It therefore appears as if the Brixton Blog would not qualify for the same exemption as Blogpreston. Should the two websites be treated differently on the basis of how the material is presented?
A further anomaly may arise because the publishers of the Brixton Blog also produce the Brixton Bugle, a print edition that contains content that also appears online. Even if the online content is exempt because it is deemed to be a blog, the print edition of the paper will be a relevant publication.
The exclusion of small, multi-author blogs from the definition of relevant publisher may therefore not protect small community-based, online papers such the Brixton Blog or onthewight.com.
The exemptions for broadcasters (s.1-3, schedule 15) appear to be based on the fact that they are regulated by Ofcom. Yet whilst this is true in relation to broadcasting, it is not in relation to the broadcasters’ websites. The websites of the BBC and Sky News will not be classed as relevant publishers, whilst those belonging to national newspapers such as the Guardian and The Times will be. Likewise, MTV’s website is exempt from being a relevant publication, but NME’s website, which covers similar subject matter (music, television, celebrity gossip), is not exempt. A further example is National Geographic, which covers several current affairs issues and seems not to qualify as a relevant publisher because of its related television channel, whereas other current affairs magazines do.
English PEN contacted a number of publishers – of varying types – to gather their views on press regulation.
The traditional news publishers we contacted – those with large publishing groups or national coverage – were aware of the issues concerning press regulation and had considered the matters at stake. Some smaller local news sites had also considered the issues, although they were wary of the costs implications of joining a regulator. Other publishers – such as those who deliver news but not in traditional formats – were aware of the issues but uncertain of their positions. And others – including a very small, local newspaper – considered that press regulation affected others, but not them.
A brief description of the publications we heard from, along with their comments, is set out below.
The London Evening Standard, together with sister newspapers the Independent and the i, is one of the major newspapers that has not signed up to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). Will Gore, the paper’s deputy managing editor, believes that the legislation concerning press regulation is unclear, and that this encourages people to wait and see how the law will develop. He believes that there are a number of uncertainties created by the legislation, and that there is an anomaly between the websites operated by the press, which will fall within a recognised regulator’s remit, and websites that are operated by broadcasters, which are not regulated by Ofcom.
The newspaper is published by a small local printing business. It is written by several authors and edited, and contains local news. There are no exemptions for newspapers of any size.
The publisher regards press regulation as ‘not for tiny fish’ like this publication. He had not considered whether he might be a relevant publisher nor the consequences. If the publication was relevant, he would have to think about whether it was ‘worth the candle’ to carry on. He did not see issues of press regulation applying to this publication and therefore probably would not join a regulator.
Styled as a community and news site for the local area, the Cricklade Bugle urges readers to think of it as Cricklade’s local paper. It is written by its editor, Peter Hansen, but he is seeking a team to help. At the moment therefore, the site would not be a relevant publication (as it is not written by more than one person), but it may become so.
The editor is aware of issues of press regulation and says all contributors must comply with the PCC editors’ code. Although not a journalist by trade, the editor has said he tries to run the site as professionally as he can, and uses common sense to handle everything. He believes that press regulation ought to apply to his small site as much as the large newspapers, but is concerned about the cost of joining the regulator.
An online newspaper for the city of Lincoln, the Lincolnite has a small staff and a number of other local contributors. It articles are listed in reverse chronological order, almost like a blog, but are also sorted into categories much like more traditional newspaper sites. Its editor, Daniel Ionescu, believes that the Stonebow Media Ltd (which publishes the Lincolnite) will be a relevant publisher. He has said that the Stonebow would gladly join a recognised regulator, ‘as long as there are not ridiculous fees for businesses our size’.
A satirical current affairs magazine, Private Eye’s publishers Pressdram Ltd fall squarely within the definition of a relevant publisher. Pressdram is acutely aware of the relevant legislation and the consequences of not joining a recognised regulator once one exists, saying that the provisions in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 are ‘likely to result in unnecessary expenditure of time and costs, if not outright injustice’. Ian Hislop, Private Eye’s editor, has said that Pressdram ‘will have to have [these provisions] in mind when we consider whether to join an approved regulator (when there is one) and, if we decide not to do so, our reasons for that decision’.
An internet-based magazine, Digital Spy says its site contains news and discussion about entertainment of every kind. As part of Hearst Magazines UK, the website is part of a large business that publishes a range of news-related publications, including Cosmopolitan magazine. This business did not tell us its views on the issues of regulation, but did say it had chosen to join IPSO.
This is the website of the youth branch of the Liberal Democrats. Whether it is published in the