# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
George Osborne has been announced as the new editor of the Evening Standard.

The former Chancellor will succeed Sarah Sands and take up his role in early May.

Mr Osborne said: "This is such an exciting and challenging job and I'm thrilled to take it on. The Evening Standard is a great paper, testimony to the hard work of Sarah Sands and the impressive team, and to the investment of its owners. I look forward to working with, learning from and leading this team of dedicated professionals.

"Growing up as a Londoner, I've always known that the Evening Standard is an institution that plays a huge part in the life of the city and its people. Now it is a great honour that I can play a part as leader of the editorial team making the Evening Standard the definitive voice of the world's most exciting city.

"I am proud to be a Conservative MP, but as editor and leader of a team of dedicated and independent journalists, our only interest will be to give a voice to all Londoners. We will be fearless as a paper fighting for their interests. We will judge what the government, London's politicians and the political parties do against this simple test: is it good for our readers and good for London? If it is, we'll support them. If it isn't, we'll be quick to say so.

"So much is now at stake about the future of our country and its capital city. I will remain in Parliament, where that future is debated.

"I was elected by my constituents in Tatton to serve them and I intend to fulfil that promise. I remain passionate about the Northern Powerhouse and will continue to promote that cause. Right from the first speech I gave about the North of England, I've said that London needs a successful north and the north benefits from its links to a global city like London.

"It's not a zero-sum game, but quite the opposite."

Evening Standard proprietor, Evgeny Lebedev said: "In George, we have appointed someone of huge political achievement, and economic and cultural authority. Once he put himself forward for the position, he was the obvious choice. I am proud to have an Editor of such substance, who reinforces the Evening Standard's standing and influence in London and whose political viewpoint - liberal on social issues and pragmatic on economic ones - closely matches those of many of our readers."

Mr Osborne will remain as an MP and will continue to vote and contribute in Parliament in afternoons after the paper goes to print.

It was announced in January that current editor Sarah Sands is leaving the Evening Standard to take up a new role as editor of BBC Radio 4's Today Programme.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
George Osborne announced as new Evening Standard editor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
George Osborne has been announced as the new editor of the Evening Standard. The former Chancellor will succeed Sarah Sands and take up his role in early May. Mr Osborne said: "This is such an exciting and challenging job and I'm thrilled to take it on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
REACTION: Tatton MP George Osborne named London Evening Standard editor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reaction after is was announced George Osborne has been appointed editor of the London Evening Standard but will continue to serve as Tatton MP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ethics committee assessing George Osborne's new job as editor of the Evening Standard is understood to be actively considering a call for the former chancellor to delay or decline the role.

The former chancellor was widely criticised for his decision not to quit his Tatton seat in north-west England since it was announced that he would take up the position. He irritated the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba), which considers whether new jobs for former ministers could present a conflict of interest, by announcing the appointment before they were given time to review any potential conflict with his duties as MP and his former role at the Treasury.

The committee is usually given at least a month to carry out research into what contacts a former minister had in his or her department that could constitute a conflict of interest in any new role, but it is understood that some members of the committee were informed less than an hour before Osborne's appointment was made public. They are now expected to give advice within two weeks.

Osborne defended his new job on Monday, telling the House of Commons that parliament benefited from members bringing in experience of different sectors alongside their constituency work. He was responding to an urgent question from Labour's election co-ordinator Andrew Gwynne over a potential conflict of interest.

"I thought it was important to be here, though unfortunately we have missed the deadline of the Evening Standard," the former chancellor joked in the House of Commons, to a mixture of cheers and jeers. "In my view, Mr Speaker, this parliament is enhanced when we have people from all walks of life and different experience in the debate and when people who have held senior ministerial office continue to contribute to the debate," he said.

However, Osborne added that he would "listen to what my colleagues have to say in this debate."

The former chancellor has been rebuked previously by Acoba for failing to wait for their advice before announcing his Northern Powerhouse project, and similar criticism is likely to be levelled in this case.

The committee relies on giving guidance that might embarrass a former minister or senior civil servant were they to take up the role against their advice. Few decisions are published where the applicant has been advised not to take up the role - normally because those who are told that the committee will not endorse the appointment decide to withdraw their applications.

Osborne's decision to announce the high-profile role as a newspaper editor - the first case of its kind considered by the committee - may be seen as an attempt to tie their hands. However, the Guardian understands that the option to recommend that Osborne withdraw or delay is being actively considered. Whether the former chancellor follows the advice - which will be made public - depends on his embarrassment threshold.

One particular concern is the Standard's business model as a freesheet dependent on selling advertising on the basis of its reach and readership, and Osborne's old connections as chancellor with business leaders, as well as the advertising spend by the Treasury on adverts in the London paper.

There is also frustration that the committee could be blamed if Osborne continues in the role despite it raising conflicts of interest, when it in fact has no legal power to stop him. All work is done via email, and the workload is high, with members considering up to 10 cases a week.

However, some members of the committee who have been pushing for it to be given statutory powers to prevent ministers or civil servants taking up roles that would be a conflict of interest may view the furore over Osborne as helpful in making their case for a more robust process. Andrew Gwynne said that the failure to give Acoba greater notice "deeply undermines public trust in the democratic process" and urged the government to give the watchdog more powers.

"To hold one outside interest is perhaps defensible, but to hold several time-consuming outside commitments that have a deep overlap with the political, full-time commitment to this house is impossible to defend," he said. Gwynne said MPs and voters wanted to see a "stronger system able to commend the confidence of this house and the public, because it's what we deserve".

In response, Cabinet Office minister Ben Gummer said the government welcomed a review of the rules over second jobs and said the ministerial code was a "matter of high concern" to the prime minister.

Gummer said he did not want to prejudice Acoba's guidance. "The important thing is to say that it is indeed independent," he said. "They are considering it and it would be wrong for me to prejudice it and say my view or the government's view on it, not that we have a view until the committee reports on it."

Among the Tory MPs defending Osborne in the Commons was his former cabinet colleague and Times columnist Michael Gove, a former journalist who himself has been tipped as a potential future newspaper editor. "Is it not the case that we believe in a free press and that proprietors should have the right to appoint who they like to be editor, without the executive or anyone else interfering with that decision?" he said. "And isn't it also the case that who represents a constituency should be up to its voters, not the opposition or anyone else?"

Osborne's appointment will be subjected to wider scrutiny. On Tuesday, the economy committee of the London Assembly will consider whether the appointment could "affect the neutrality and objectivity of news coverage in London".

Osborne will be questioned by his constituents in Tatton, Cheshire, on Friday, when he is expected to attend his local Conservative Association's annual general meeting.

A petition signed by more than 175,000 people was delivered to his constituency office on Monday, calling on the MP to "pick one job and stick to it".
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethics committee may ask Osborne to decline Evening Standard role

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ethics committee assessing George Osborne's new job as editor of the Evening Standard is understood to be actively considering a call for the former chancellor to delay or decline the role. The former chancellor was widely criticised for his decision not to quit his Tatton seat in north-west England since it was announced that he would take up the position.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The plan was a simple one.

We'd arranged to meet a woman in her village in China's central Hunan Province and to then travel with her by train to Beijing, filming as we went.

But we never did get to meet our interviewee.

The story we ended up with, however, reveals more about the exercise of power in China than any interview ever could.

It is one that involves violence, intimidation and a forced confession - my first in my long reporting experience in China - in which I found myself apologising for "behaviour causing a bad impact" and for trying to conduct an "illegal interview".

Yang Linghua was planning to take the train to Beijing because she is what's known in China as a "petitioner".

Every year, many tens of thousands of Chinese people - denied the possibility of obtaining any justice through the local Communist Party run courts - head to the capital, taking their grievances to the "State Bureau of Letters and Calls".

Corruption cases, land-grabs, local government malfeasance, medical negligence, police brutality, unfair dismissal - all are documented in the bundles of papers - the petitions - they carry with them.

The system is also Communist Party run, of course, and the chances of success are tiny.

But for many, it's the only chance they've got, and they often continue to petition, in vain, for years.

Allegations of brutality

Just like Yang Linghua's family.

The BBC interviewed her sister, Yang Qinghua, three years ago on a petitioning trip to Beijing.

The women allege that their land was stolen from them and their father, in the ensuing dispute, was beaten so badly he eventually died.

But there's a particular reason Ms Yang was trying to reach Beijing this week.

On Sunday, China begins its annual parliamentary session, The National People's Congress (NPC).

The event is like a magnet for petitioners who hope to use the grand occasion to promote their cause.

Beijing, though, has other ideas.

It would rather keep this ragged army of the dispossessed away from its carefully choreographed piece of political theatre and so provincial officials the length and breadth of the land, are tasked with stopping petitioners making the journey.

We knew that Ms Yang's sister and mother had already been placed under unofficial house arrest.

But as she herself had never been to Beijing to petition before, she felt she would be free from suspicion and, at the very least, able to board a train.

She was wrong.

As soon as we arrived in Yang Linghua's village it was clear they were expecting us.

The road to her house was blocked by a large group of people and, within a few minutes, they'd assaulted us and smashed all of our cameras.

While such violence can be part of the risk faced by foreign reporters in China, what happened next is more unusual.

After we left the village, we were chased down and had our car surrounded by a group of about 20 thugs.

They were then joined by some uniformed police officers and two officials from the local foreign affairs office, and under the threat of further violence, we were made to delete some of our footage and forced to sign the confession.

It was a very one-sided negotiation, but it at least gave us a way out - a luxury denied to the petitioners who find themselves on the receiving end of similar intimidation and abuse.

A video sent to us by Yang Linghua's sister shows her being detained by some of the same people who threatened us.

Warnings not to travel

In the course of researching this story we spoke to one woman, now in her seventies, who has been petitioning since 1988 for a longer prison sentence for her husband's murderer.

She told us that every year during the National People's Congress she is put under house arrest for 10 days.

A man we contacted, petitioning over the abduction of his son, had been warned not to travel this week.

He went ahead and booked his tickets anyway but was prevented from boarding the train in Guangdong Province.

Even for those who do make it to Beijing, the threat of being caught remains.

Outside the petitioning office this week, hundreds of "interceptors" have gathered, the squads of goons sent from each province to search out and cajole or coerce their petitioners to return home.

Of course, many petitioners do still make it and are able to lodge their claims, particularly first-timers who are not yet known to the system.

But the irony is, the harder China works to stem the flow during its national parliament, the more incentive there is for people to come.

Most petitioners are not so naive as to believe they'll be able to get anywhere near the senior officials attending the parliament.

But the desperation of their own provincial governments to catch them gives those who make it to Beijing a certain leverage.

Ignored all year round, often by the same officials they're petitioning against, they suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of offers to negotiate.

One petitioner showed us the text message exchanges she has had with the interceptors trying to track her down, with one even offering to take her on holiday. Anything to get her out of Beijing.

We have heard nothing from Yang Linghua or her family since they disappeared.

We have asked government officials in Beijing whether they can provide an assurance that they are safe and well.

Meanwhile, on the eve of China's parliamentary gathering, many of its citizens - often those, it could be argued, who are most in need of parliamentary representation - face similar abuse.

And despite having signed that confession I make no apology for trying to interview them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC team forced to sign China confession

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The plan was a simple one. We'd arranged to meet a woman in her village in China's central Hunan Province and to then travel with her by train to Beijing, filming as we went. But we never did get to meet our interviewee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the debate over fake news rages on, a viral video that seems to have been staged was splashed all over various news sites.

Filmed from the headcam of a motorcyclist, it shows a woman furiously confronting a van full of men who catcalled her. After a tense interaction at a set of traffic lights, in which one man asks her if she's on her period, the woman follows the van down the street. In a fury, she tears the wing mirror from the side of the van.

First things first: catcalling and street harassment happen regularly. Many women can tell a tale similar to this one in which they have felt threatened by men in a car or a van while cycling or walking. The video itself is viral dynamite - there's a delicious satisfaction in seeing the woman tear off her harassers' wing mirror. Naturally, it featured on many major news sites on Wednesday.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

How the Mirror website reported the story. Photograph: Mirror.co.uk

Websites including the Sun, the Mirror, the MailOnline, Mashable, the Evening Standard and the Telegraph ran pieces on the original video. Later on Wednesday afternoon, the Sun spoke to a builder named Scott Deane who said he believed it had been staged.

He told them: "I was across the road having a break and I saw this very attractive girl with a bike talking to a blonde guy who was giving her instructions.

"Then three guys dressed in orange site clothes turned up in a van and the blonde bloke was giving them instructions, too.

"He was telling the girl: 'You need to ride behind the van aggressively.'

But even before this witness came forward a few things made the video seem suspect. It's extremely convenient that the motorcyclist managed to capture the whole thing - though, as many motorcyclists wear helmet cameras, it's not impossible. Some people also pointed out that it's a bit difficult to pull off a wing mirror so easily.

The video itself seems to follow a model often seen on prankster sites that create outrageous situations and film them with the intention of going viral. Take Trollstation, for example.

Its Facebook page is full of videos in which performers act out topical and controversial situations in real life, normally surrounded by confused people going about their day. Usually they are framed as "social experiments". Last year Trollstation made one such video in which a woman was hit with a sugar bottle after slapping a man at the Million Women Rise march in Trafalgar Square.

While this video bears similarities in tone, it's not quite as simple as that. Usually, videos are licensed by companies after they go viral. Those companies then sell them on to news organisations. In this case, the video was uploaded directly by one such company, Viral Thread, which is owned by Jungle Creations.

On its website Jungle Creations says: "We create and curate the best content on the internet to entertain and engage our audience of over 21 million followers."

Jungle Creations has denied it created the video. Co-founder Paul Beiboer told the Evening Standard: "We couldn't verify its authenticity, but we don't think it's fake."

The Guardian emailed Jungle Creations' licensing department, which said:

As we receive hundreds of submissions daily and are only recently establishing our licensing team [this] means we do not have the resources available to do in-depth checks on every piece of content we get sent. At this stage in our licensing setup, that is as much as we can help you with.

Jungle Creations then outlined its fees to feature the video on the Guardian website - £400 for an in-house player and £150 for its social media channels.

When the Guardian asked to see an unblurred, not-for-publication, version of the video to do its own verification, or even speak to the person who filmed it, Jungle Creations did not respond.

Others online have questioned whether the video is real. According to one exchange on YouTube, on an account listed as an official Jungle Creations account, the video was taken off a subreddit dedicated to dashcam videos because users felt it may have been staged.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Screenshot of an exchange between someone who claims to be a Jungle Creations staffer and a sceptical YouTube user. Photograph: YouTube

The video posted on Viral Thread's Facebook page has now been taken down, as has the copy on YouTube.

If what a witness told the Sun is true, this could be revealed as a big viral stunt shortly, unless someone from the video comes forward to vouch for its authenticity.

Either way, it shows how unverified viral videos can make their way quickly to the front pages of some of the world's biggest websites.

UPDATE: Jungle Creations has posted a statement on their website admitting the video may have been "factually incorrect". They deny any involvement in the making of the video and are conducting an "internal investigation."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why a viral video of a cyclist's revenge on catcallers may not be all it seems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the debate over fake news rages on, a viral video that seems to have been staged was splashed all over various news sites. Filmed from the headcam of a motorcyclist, it shows a woman furiously confronting a van full of men who catcalled her.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even as the media continues to take Facebook to task over its fake news problem, many parts of the news business are doing their best to undermine their argument that they should be considered more trustworthy.

On Tuesday evening, a video of a female cyclist responding to cat calls from workers in a van by chasing them and pulling off a wing mirror was picked up by the media, after being posted on a Facebook page and attracting millions of views.

Most outlets including the Sun, The Mirror, Mail Online and the Huffington Post reported it as fact without even mentioning the source.

The Independent also covered it, saying the source of the video couldn't give any more details, while the Telegraph mentioned it came from viral creative agency Jungle Creations.

The Evening Standard even went as far as suggesting there could be concerns about its authenticity, though not until the 14th paragraph of the story. And the quote they included from Jungle Creations co-founder Paul Beiboer was particularly revealing. "We couldn't verify its authenticity, but we don't think it's fake." So the people providing the video couldn't even confirm it was real.

As my colleague Elena Cresci has pointed out, there were lots of reasons to suspect the video was a hoax. Yet not a single publication has yet responded to a question about whether they tried to independently verify whether it was real before publishing.

And inevitably, it looks likely that it was staged. More than 13 hours after publishing the video, the Sun updated its story. The original headline read "AT BRAKING POINT Female cyclist hits back at disgusting catcaller who asked her if she was 'on her period' as she RIPS OFF van's wing mirror". The updated version removes the last few words and adds: "- but was it real?"

That was because the Sun had tracked down a witness who claimed the whole thing was staged. Well done to the Sun for finding him (assuming, of course, he turns out to be real), but that doesn't excuse the fact they - and at least half a dozen newspapers and more online outlets - were prepared to report it as fact without checking it.

Other sites have since begun updating their articles, some of them footnoting their article explaining their changes. Viral Thread subsequently removed the video from their Facebook page.

This is not a new problem. The pressure for clicks has pushed many news organisations to take an increasingly lax attitude to checking whether a great story is made up. And once it turns out to be a hoax, they just put up another story "revealing" that it was a fake and hoover up more clicks. Remember the "giant" rat? There are almost no financial penalties for this behaviour in ad-based, audience-scale-at-all-costs publishing. Much as with Facebook, fake news means easy clicks, but some of the media seems unconcerned when it's on their own sites.

In the long run this kind of behaviour will further undermine the media as a whole. When our trustworthiness is being questioned so throughly, when our reputations are being attacked on a daily basis, the news media needs to be more careful than ever that it doesn't mislead people. Unfortunately, it seems that a large swath of the UK's media have no intention of applying the basic standards required to ensure they don't.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If newspapers won't check viral stories, who will listen to them about fake news? | Jasper Jackson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even as the media continues to take Facebook to task over its fake news problem, many parts of the news business are doing their best to undermine their argument that they should be considered more trustworthy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Putin Says Dossier Is An Obama Administration Attempt To Undermine Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When asked about Trump's alleged sexual activities with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel, Putin said the allegations were "fake."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A dossier making explosive - but unverified - allegations that the Russian government has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" President-elect Donald Trump for years and gained compromising information about him has been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.

The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. BuzzFeed News reporters in the US and Europe have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump.

Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.

The document was prepared for political opponents of Trump by a person who is understood to be a former British intelligence agent. It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors. The report misspells the name of one company, "Alpha Group," throughout. It is Alfa Group. The report says the settlement of Barvikha, outside Moscow, is "reserved for the residences of the top leadership and their close associates." It is not reserved for anyone, and it is also populated by the very wealthy.

The Trump administration's transition team did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News' request for comment. However, the president-elect's attorney, Michael Cohen, told Mic that the allegations were absolutely false.

"It's so ridiculous on so many levels," he said. "Clearly, the person who created this did so from their imagination or did so hoping that the liberal media would run with this fake story for whatever rationale they might have."

And Trump shot back against the reports a short time later on Twitter.

His former campaign manager and current senior White House adviser, Kellyanne Conway, also denied the claims during an appearance on Late Night With Seth Meyers, adding that "nothing has been confirmed." She also said Trump was "not aware" of any briefing on the matter.

The documents have circulated for months and acquired a kind of legendary status among journalists, lawmakers, and intelligence officials who have seen them. Mother Jones writer David Corn referred to the documents in a late October column.

Harry Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson tweeted Tuesday that the former Senate Democratic leader had seen the documents before writing a public letter to FBI Director James Comey about Trump's ties to Russia. And CNN reported Tuesday that Arizona Republican John McCain gave a "full copy" of the memos to Comey on Dec. 9, but that the FBI already had copies of many of the memos.

If you have tips related to this story, write us at trumpstories@buzzfeed.com. To send us information confidentially, go here.

Read the report here:

Ken Bensinger is an investigative reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in Los Angeles. His secure PGP fingerprint is 97CC 6E32 10A2 23FE 4E84 98B4 9CFF 4214 9D26 8AA7

Contact Ken Bensinger at ken.bensinger@buzzfeed.com.

Miriam Elder is the world editor for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York. Her secure PGP fingerprint is 5B5F EC17 C20B C11F 226D 3EBE 6205 F92F AC14 DCB1

Contact Miriam Elder at miriam.elder@buzzfeed.com.

Pulitzer-prize winner Mark Schoofs is the investigations and projects editor for BuzzFeed News. While working at The Village Voice, Schoofs won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for his series on AIDS in Africa.

Contact Mark Schoofs at mark.schoofs@buzzfeed.com.

Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A dossier making explosive - but unverified - allegations that the Russian government has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" President-elect Donald Trump for years and gained compromising information about him has been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We feel the future of this news site, newspaper and all news websites/newspapers across the country are at risk.

Two men charged with murder after 'burglary'

For the first time in 300 years, the freedom of the press is in danger with the culture secretary weighing up whether to bring in a new law that will leave nobody to expose scandals ranging from the Rotherham sex grooming cover-up to MPs' expenses.

It's a piece of legislation so illiberal, so illogical, it is hard to believe Parliament ever passed it. But it did.

A sure sign of a civilised society is a free press. We would like to stop legislation which would change that and you can show your support towards the bottom of this page.

If you already know about how the freedom of the press is under threat, you can go straight to the consultation form.

What is happening?

A new law has been proposed that, if implemented, means that when someone sues, even if the published article is entirely true, in the public interest and the complaint is thrown out by the courts, any newspaper not signed up to a state-approved regulator will have to pay ALL the costs.

That has the potential to cripple not just the giants of the industry but every local newspaper doing its best to highlight wrongdoing.

Most of our greatest injustices are exposed not by MPs or the police, but by newspapers.

The MPs' expenses scandal, the Rotherham sex grooming cover-up and the monumental failures over the murder of Stephen Lawrence are just a few of the investigations that would never have been possible if Section 40 was in force.

The Sunday Times says its Lance Armstrong investigation would never have been published if the new law had been in place.

It all falls under Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, rushed into law after the Leveson Inquiry.

In it, any relevant newspaper or news website - whether that be Metro.co.uk, The Guardian, Gizmodo UK or Buzzfeed right through to Tandridge County Border News, Scottish Cycling or anyone else - refusing to join a regulator approved under the Government's Royal Charter for the Press will be forced to pay the other side's legal costs, even if they win, when they are sued for libel.

It is mainly funded by the controversial former Formula One boss Max Mosley.

This all comes at a time when newspapers are already under tough regulation through the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which regularly orders corrections and can impose fines of up to £1million.

If you, like us, think this is clearly wrong, you have only a few days to do something about it, with the consultation running until 10 January.

What can be done?

Very sensibly, the culture secretary has launched a consultation.

You can tell the Government this unjust legislation must be repealed, the free press should be maintained and that no money should be wasted on another Leveson Inquiry.

Here's your step-by-step guide to how you can give your opinion:

Here's your step-by-step guide for how you can help

So who regulates Metro and Metro.co.uk now?

Metro.co.uk and 2,600 other news websites, newspapers, and magazines do not believe the Press can be truly free under rules imposed by politicians. We belong to a regulator which is entirely independent of the Government.

Chaired by former Appeal Court Judge Sir Alan Moses, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) regularly orders front page corrections and - if necessary - can impose fines of up to £1 million.

Why not join the state-approved regulator?

Called Impress, it claims to be independent, but is bankrolled by former F1 boss Max Mosley, on a mission to 'reform' the Press ever since a newspaper revealed his sado-masochistic orgy with five prostitutes.

It has just a handful of micro-publisher members, some barely more than online blogs. No mainstream news organisation has joined.

Is it really a free ticket for crooks and bankruptcy for news providers?

Costs in High Court legal actions routinely run into hundreds of thousands of pounds - sometimes millions. This legislation gives anyone who wants to silence journalists a free ticket. News organisations that fight will face being bankrupted.

What about Leveson Two?

The original Leveson Inquiry and associated criminal trials have already cost the taxpayer nearly £50 million.

Despite a raft of reforms to the Press, police and politics, the culture secretary is under pressure to go over it all again with Leveson Part Two.

MORE: Leveson: Newspaper industry rejects government regulation proposals

MORE: Press regulation royal charter published as Leveson deal struck

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't let politicians destroy press freedom, act now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We feel the future of this news site, newspaper and all news websites/newspapers across the country are at risk. Two men charged with murder after 'burglary' For the first time in 300 years, the freedom of the press is in danger with the culture secretary weighing up whether to bring in a new law that will leave nobody to expose scandals ranging from the Rotherham sex grooming cover-up to MPs' expenses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Editors’ Code of Practice sets out the rules that newspapers and magazines regulated by IPSO have agreed to follow. The Code is written and administered by the Editors’ Code Committee but enforced by IPSO.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IMPRESS is at the vanguard of a new, positive future for news publishers, ensuring quality independent journalism flourishes in a digital age. We help to build understanding and trust between journalists and the public - and provide the public with trusted sources of news.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first officially recognised UK press regulator has got the go-ahead from an independent panel.

Impress, established by press reform campaigners, received formal approval from the Press Recognition Panel (PRP).

Campaign group Hacked Off has welcomed the decision, but bodies representing the press warned it will bring "state-sponsored" regulation of newspapers.

Most newspapers have signed up to rival Ipso - the press-funded regulator which did not seek official recognition.

Impress, which currently regulates 25 small specialist publications, has received funding from former Formula One boss Max Mosley, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and author JK Rowling.

It was given the go-ahead by the PRP, which was set up in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry to ensure any future press regulator met certain standards.
Analysis: Divisions persist on press regulation
Evan Harris, joint executive director of Hacked Off, which campaigns for greater press regulation, said the decision paved the way for the "first regulator to have proven its independence and effectiveness" under the Leveson system of independent assessment.

"The days of failed industry-controlled regulators like the PCC and its sham replacement Ipso are numbered," he said.

"This decision makes Impress the only regulator which the public, readers and victims of press abuse can trust to regulate newspapers and safeguard freedom of the press, while offering redress when they get things wrong."

'State-sponsored system'

However, Impress's bid for official recognition has angered many newspapers, who argue it would be a threat to press freedom.

Lynne Anderson, deputy chief executive of News Media Association - which represents publishers - said she was disappointed by the decision to recognise Impress, saying it had been set up "to trigger punitive costs sanctions against Britain's press".

She also defended Ipso - which represents most of Britain's main national and regional newspapers - saying it was "effective and independent".

She added: "Not a single significant national or regional newspaper or magazine has signed up to the state-sponsored system of regulation under the PRP."

Bob Satchwell, from the Society of Editors, said the PRP had been "set up by politicians with public funds" and has "no real work to do because Impress represents only a very small number of local publishers".

An Ipso spokesperson said: "We have been regulating the overwhelming majority of the UK's newspapers, magazines and news websites for the last two years and will continue to do so."

The background to press regulation

In 2011, it emerged that thousands of people, from celebrities to families of murder victims, including Milly Dowler, had been victims of phone hacking by the now-defunct News of the World.

In response, then prime minister David Cameron set up a public, judge-led investigation - the Leveson Inquiry - to examine the culture, behaviour and ethics of the press.

Lord Leveson recommended newspapers should continue to be self-regulated - as they had been by the Press Complaints Commission - but that there should be a new press standards body created by the industry, backed by legislation, and with a new code of conduct.

Plans to set up a new press watchdog by Royal Charter were backed in 2013 by Mr Cameron and the UK's other main party leaders at the time, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, but the press rejected them and formed its own regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso).

The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) was set up under the same Royal Charter to ensure that regulators of the UK's press were "independent, properly funded and able to protect the public".

Its main role is to consider applications from press regulators that want to be recognised as being effective.
Press regulation: What you need to know
Culture Secretary Karen Bradley will now have to decide whether to activate regulations which could see newspapers face "exemplary" damages if they are sued for libel unless they agree to be regulated by Impress.

Triggering Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 would mean any newspaper that refused to sign up to the new regulator could have to pay the legal fees of a complainant who sued them for libel, even if the paper won the case.

However, appearing before the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Monday, Ms Bradley made clear she would be in no hurry to activate the regulations.

She told MPs there were fears among local newspapers in particular that they could be forced out of business if the rules were enforced and she wanted to consider all the options before making a decision.

Former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he was opposed to the Section 40 proposals.

He said: "If you bring in these sanctions, you are going to punish every newspaper across the country.

"If you're saying to somebody that unless you join this you are going to be liable for potentially millions of pounds of costs, even if you win your case, that's not just an encouragement."

However, Mr Harris said those who signed up to Impress would receive protection from excessive legal costs through a "low-cost arbitration service" that would help settle legal disputes."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first officially recognised UK press regulator has got the go-ahead from an independent panel. Impress, established by press reform campaigners, received formal approval from the Press Recognition Panel (PRP). Campaign group Hacked Off has welcomed the decision, but bodies representing the press warned it will bring "state-sponsored" regulation of newspapers.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ipso.co.uk/about-ipso/