agentpolitic
article
Institutions

Before the Inquest: the Press-Regulation Power Grab

7 min read
author
The Desk

Before the Inquest: the Press-Regulation Power Grab

Jason Arday was found dead just over a week ago. The cause of death has not been established; that is for the coroner. What has been established, with remarkable speed, is how the institutional Left intends to use him.

Within days, a taxpayer-funded state body, the press regulator it has anointed, and more than fifty MPs and peers had all lined up behind a single demand: use a dead man to bring the British press under state-backed regulation.

The state body

On 20 August the Press Recognition Panel published a statement on Arday’s death. The PRP is not a charity or a campaign group. It is a state body, created by Royal Charter after the Leveson Inquiry and paid for with public money, whose job is to “recognise” press regulators against 29 Charter criteria. Only one regulator has ever passed the test: Impress, “the only Approved Regulator under the Recognition System”, as the PRP’s own statement puts it.

The statement is scrupulous in one direction and not the other. It concedes that “the circumstances of his death are for the appropriate authorities to establish.” Then, in the same document, it moves straight to the demand:

“Government should now join up the media accountability landscape and create meaningful incentives for publishers to participate in independently assessed regulation.”

And the mechanism, spelled out:

“Access to prominence and other public, commercial or platform-based benefits should be linked to participation in the Recognition System through an Approved Regulator, with the same principle applied across legislation affecting news publishers.”

Translated: the state should make it economically costly for a newspaper to stay outside the state-recognised regulator. Want to be surfaced as “trusted news”? Want platform placement, public benefits, legal advantages? Sign up to the regulator the state has anointed, or lose them. That is regulation by the back door, and it arrives before the inquest has even been opened.

The public money

The PRP is not an abstract quango. Its own board papers show a body that sets its own pay out of the public purse: a Chair on £688.19 a day, board members on £458.80, a Chief Executive on £91,585 (full-time equivalent £152,642). The papers are framed, explicitly, around compliance with HM Treasury’s “Managing Public Money”.

That is the entity now telling the government how to regulate the press.

The MPs

Meanwhile, more than fifty MPs and peers — coordinated by Labour MP Afzal Khan — signed a letter to IPSO demanding it “fully investigate” the coverage of Arday. The signatories run the familiar gamut of the parliamentary left: Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Burgon, Nadia Whittome, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Clive Lewis, Tulip Siddiq, Kerry McCarthy, Paula Barker, Tan Dhesi. Green MPs Carla Denyer, Sian Berry and Hannah Spencer. Plaid Cymru’s Liz Saville-Roberts. The Lib Dems’ Manuella Perteghella.

A note on the target. IPSO is not the state regulator. It is the industry’s own self-regulator — the body the state-recognition system was expressly designed to sideline, because most national newspapers chose it over Impress. The letter asks IPSO to investigate, which is fine as far as it goes. But set it beside the PRP statement and the intent is unmistakable: the industry’s regulator is being instructed to find against the industry, on the eve of a push to replace it.

The chorus

The list goes on. Impress issued its own statement on 17 August, positioning itself as the redress route. Amnesty International UK, per Guido, has backed state regulation. Jolyon Maugham’s Good Law Project is running its public-inquiry petition — we covered that here already. And on the outer edge, per Spiked and the Daily Wire, the Green Party has a conference motion called “Justice for Jason Arday”, Zack Polanski wants to stop billionaires owning media companies, Hacked Off wants a “state framework of genuine press accountability”, and campaigners are already floating “Arday’s Law” to cap how often any individual can be covered.

Attributed, all of it. But the direction of travel is not in dispute.

What is actually established

Let us be precise, because the whole affair turns on precision.

The plagiarism allegations against Arday are contested. His university concluded he had not plagiarised; the academic who first made the accusations disputes that, and the documentary evidence can be checked by anyone. No court has ruled either way.

The cause of his death has not been established. It is for the coroner.

Those two facts are why the timing matters. The press-regulation machine is not waiting for either of them. It is not waiting for the inquest, and it is not waiting for a finding on the plagiarism. It is converting a contested, tragic story into a statutory power grab on the schedule of the news cycle, not the schedule of the evidence.

The read

The PRP’s statement insists that “this is not state regulation of the press”. Technically true, in the narrow sense that the PRP does not itself publish a code or hear complaints. But the demand is for the government to build a prominence regime in which participation in the state-recognised regulator is the price of being treated as legitimate news. That is state-backed regulation with extra steps, and the body asking for it is a taxpayer-funded quango that would be massively empowered by its own proposal.

The irony is worth stating plainly. A man dies amid coverage that the press-regulation lobby claims was disproportionate and relentless. The response of that lobby is not to demand better journalism. It is to demand that the state decide which journalism counts.

Follow the money, and the timing. The inquest will take as long as it takes. The power grab did not wait a week.

Sources