The Guardian and The Financial Times today faced allegations of failing their readers, after both titles were caught publishing misleading articles about the legislation underpinning the Leveson system of independent press regulation.A letter, co-signed by IMPRESS, the PINF, the MRC, IMA and the Chair of the NUJ Ethics Council, was sent to editors of both publications. The letter can be read here.Section 40 is a two-sided law. It would protect regulated newspapers from paying the costs of legal cases brought against them, while exposing unregulated newspapers to their opponents’ costs where the judge considers it reasonable to do so.The Leveson system has the support of leading free speech groups, associations representing independent and local newspapers, leading minority advocacy groups, most major political parties, as well as the vast majority of the public in opinion polls. Its opponents are national newspaper owners, and the leadership of the Conservative Party.The Guardian and The Financial Times are, rightly, quick to hold many in public life to account. But they also have an obligation to their readers to report on matters relating to themselves, and their own industry, with accuracy and integrity.Hacked Off and other leading organisations in the field of press standards have today written to editors of these titles, to encourage them to do better.Commenting, Hacked Off Chief Executive Nathan Sparkes said,

Over 200 independent and locally-owned newspapers are in IMPRESS, and would stand to benefit from the freedom of expression protections which section 40's costs-shifting provisions would provide. But you would never know that from the coverage of The Guardian and the Financial Times this morning, which makes no reference to the positive impact section 40 commencement would have on regulated publishers, and almost no reference to the way it would make justice more accessible to victims of press illegality.The Guardian and the Financial Times have chosen, to date, to remain outside of the Leveson system of independent regulation, and they have used their editorial coverage of these matters to campaign against it. That is their right, but they have an obligation to their readers to give a complete and accurate account of how the Leveson system, and the statute underpinning it, operates.It is extremely disappointing to see the interests of independent newspapers effectively airbrushed out of the argument by these wealthier, national titles, which are significantly less vulnerable than the independent press to the impact of "chilling" from wealthy litigants which section 40 was designed to prevent. We hope that future coverage of these matters will be more balanced and do more to take the interests of those publishers into account.

Contact:press@hackinginquiry.org