Could “offshore journalism” bypass press regulation?

Press regulator IPSO is reviewing its rules regarding its global remit following recent claims that a Mail Online story about Hollywood actor, Tom Cruise, was inaccurate.

Editors at the Mail Online refused defend the story, stating that it was commissioned, written and published in the United States for a US audience and fully complied with US laws and conventions.

In lieu of any defence from the publisher, IPSO upheld the complaint and insisted the Mail Online publish a critical adjudication. The adjudication was buried deep on the Mail Online’s extensive home page, neatly slotted beside an article about possible reform at the IPSO, while the original unaltered article remains online.

Highlighting the challenges facing press regulation in the modern age, the Mail Online reports that IPSO Chief Executive, Matt Tee said: “When the current regulations were drafted nearly four years ago, it was difficult to imagine the developments that would take place in digital publishing, with some publishers having numerous editorial bureaux across the world focussed on different audiences in different time zones.

“This is already an issue for some IPSO members and is bound to affect others in future. It may also be a disincentive to other global digital publishers joining IPSO. We want a solution that enables IPSO to be an effective regulator for relevant consumers and provides a definition that is intuitive and workable for publishers”.

In an increasingly global world, where media is no longer restricted by physical distribution networks, the idea of a publication being tied to one country (and its laws and its regulations) becomes untenable. Defining an audience by geography is also no easy task when news knows no boundaries.

This also throws up questions about how publishers can use their global status. In the future, could we see publishers moving to “flags of convenience” and the offshoring of journalists and editors to bypass regulations?

We’ve already seen UK laws made a mockery of by publishers operating outside of British jurisdiction. Will regulation go the same way?