by Alice WatkinsPaula Yates, journalist and TV presenter was, in her own words, a woman ‘ relentlessly under siege’ by the press. Paula, a new Channel 4 documentary, is centred around interviews with the journalist Martin Townsend in the late 1990s. The film about her life and death reveals the extent of press attacks and intrusive coverage she experienced throughout her career. It shows how the press championed Paula, only to then denounce and ridicule her.“I think the press have a huge amount to answer for,” says her friend Belinda Brewin. Paula was a victim of misogynistic coverage and was hounded by newspapers, up until her death in 2000. One of the most deplorable examples of press wrongdoing featured in the film was when a tabloid accidentally sent Yates her own obituary. The headline read, “Suicide Blonde”. This was sent in the wake of her partner, rockstar, Michael Hutchence’s death in 1997. In 2017 her friend Catherine Mayer, writing for the Guardian, said that on the day Michael died a journalist rang to demand Paula speak to the press to "set the record straight." And if she didn’t he would write that Michael killed himself because he’d discovered he was HIV positive. And just two months after his death, reporters threatened to expose the identity of her real father. This was something Paula was previously unaware of until this point. But what exactly did Paula Yates do to warrant this level of scrutiny and surveillance? She didn’t.Reflecting on this time, Belinda also said that the press had decided that Paula ‘didn’t qualify for any respect’ during her grief. Journalists don’t have a duty to write nice things about people in the public eye. But they should have a duty to observe professional standards, and not to bully or abuse their targets. And when reporting on Hutchence's death - to ensure they did not intrude upon Yates’ and his family’s grief. Unethical journalistic practice happens because newspapers and their websites are not properly regulated. Most other industries in the UK are properly regulated, from broadcast media, to legal services, to finance. Newspapers aren’t, and as a result, they continue to get away with intrusive coverage today - just as they did in the 1990's. Research carried out by Hacked Off has revealed the strikingly few intrusion into grief or shock complaints which have been upheld against the press. Of 257 complaints of press intrusion into grief to be processed by the sham regulator “IPSO”, of which most national newspapers are a part, only 7 have ever been upheld.That’s less than 3%, and leaves up to 250 individuals and families to have faced press intrusion at a time of distress without remedy from IPSO.Our film The Press and the People shows how ordinary people, not just celebrities, have been the victim of press harassment following a bereavement in recent years. Since the 2012 Leveson Inquiry into press standards, we’ve been told repeatedly by newspaper editors that “everything has changed.”But for some newspapers the attitude remains that the private lives of well-known individuals exist for profit.In recent years, we’ve seen content about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry become one of the press’s richest clickbait seams. Clickbait drives readership and earns more advertising income. It’s no wonder there are so many opinion columns written about Meghan. Research carried out by Hacked Off showed that over 25 articles about Meghan Markle were published across just four newspapers every day. That’s a new article every hour, with a staggering 450 published over an 18 day period in 2021. There are countless examples of women who have been publicly shamed and abused by the press - Britney Spears, Caroline Flack, Sienna Miller and Pamela Anderson. And just like Paula Yates, they were subject to abusive coverage and often far greater scrutiny than corrupt or failing politicians.The so-called press complaints handler IPSO does not adequately protect women, high profile or otherwise from press abuse.Misogyny in the press is as fierce as ever. And yet IPSO has never even upheld a complaint of sexism in the press. Some may question whether this documentary is more media fodder at the expense of the late star, or a positive initiative to correct harmful or inaccurate narratives. I believe it’s the latter. Columnists and journalists misrepresented Paula Yates. Behind the coverage, as well as paving the way for women in the entertainment industry, Paula Yates was ultimately a mother, who was raising her children whilst navigating unfathomable tragedy, against the glare of the media spotlight. Journalists from that era often say they were simply feeding a public demand for celebrity ‘fall from grace’ stories. This is a transparent and tired excuse. Journalist Martin Townsend himself is asked about his role as a journalist and editor in that era. “I was doing my job … reporting on a story of public interest. I don’t regret anything. I just did what I did at the time for the right reasons,” he says.“I can see it would be too much for someone and that’s not a nice feeling really,” he added. Of public interest, perhaps. But was the vicious pursuit of Paula Yates in the public interest? Of course not. She was a broadcaster, not a politician, or someone corrupt or powerful.Had a competent, independent press regulator been around to make this judgement in respect of some of the coverage about her, she may have been spared some of the abuse she endured. The fact that, over twenty years on, national newspapers are still outside any such system, leaves people (and particularly women) in the public eye exposed to the same abuse today.