IPSO Editors' Code 2025

What Is IPSO and Who Does It Regulate?

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is the primary regulator for the majority of UK newspapers and magazines. Its Editors' Code of Practice, maintained by the Editors' Code of Practice Committee, sets the standards that regulated publications must follow. The 2025 edition introduces several important clarifications that every journalist working under IPSO regulation should understand.

IPSO was established in 2014 as the successor to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). It regulates over 2,500 print and online publications in the UK, including most national newspapers, regional titles, and many digital-only outlets. Notable exceptions include The Guardian, Financial Times, and publications regulated by IMPRESS.

If your publication is regulated by IPSO, complaints can be made against your work under the Editors' Code. IPSO has the power to require corrections, adjudications, and — in the most serious cases — impose fines of up to one million pounds.

The 16 Clauses of the Editors' Code

Clause 1: Accuracy

The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines that do not accurately reflect the body of the article. A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. This is the clause most frequently cited in IPSO complaints and the one most likely to lead to an adjudication.

Clause 2: Privacy

Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications. The use of long-lens photography to capture images of people in private places without consent is specifically prohibited unless there is a public interest justification.

Clause 3: Harassment

Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit. They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist, nor remain on property when asked to leave. This clause applies regardless of whether the person is a public figure.

Clause 4: Intrusion into Grief or Shock

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion. The Samaritans' media guidelines on reporting suicide are considered best practice for compliance with this clause.

Clauses 5–8: Reporting Restrictions and Children

These clauses cover reporting on children in sexual offence cases, children in general, hospitals, and the reporting of crime. The Code provides robust protections for children, requiring that their welfare takes priority over any public interest argument. Journalists must not interview or photograph children under 16 on subjects involving their welfare without the consent of a parent or similar adult.

Clauses 9–12: Sources, Subterfuge, and Discrimination

The Code protects confidential sources and restricts the use of clandestine devices, subterfuge, and misrepresentation. These methods may only be used where the material sought is in the public interest and cannot be obtained by other means. Clause 12 (Discrimination)requires that the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any physical or mental illness or disability. Details of these characteristics must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Clauses 13–16: Financial Journalism and Witness Payments

The final clauses address financial journalism (journalists must not use financial information for their own profit before publication), confidential sources, and witness payments in criminal trials.

Key Changes in the 2025 Edition

• Digital communications: The privacy clause now explicitly covers digital communications, including encrypted messaging and social media direct messages.
• AI-generated content: New guidance clarifies that the accuracy clause applies equally to AI-generated text and images. Publications must ensure AI-produced content meets the same standards as human-written material.
• Online corrections: Updated guidance on the prominence of online corrections, including requirements for social media platforms where articles have been shared.
• Mental health reporting: Strengthened guidance on reporting about mental health, including expanded advice on terminology and framing.

The Public Interest Exception

Several clauses of the Editors' Code include a public interest exception. The Code defines the public interest as including:

• Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety
• Protecting public health or safety
• Protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation
• Disclosing a person or organisation's failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject
• Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public

Crucially, the editor invoking the public interest must demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication would serve the public interest at the time the decision was made, even if subsequent events prove them wrong. This is a subjective test, not an objective one.

How IPSO Adjudicates Complaints

If a complaint is made against your publication, IPSO will first attempt to mediate a resolution. If mediation fails, the complaint may be referred to the Complaints Committee for adjudication. The process typically takes several weeks, and journalists should cooperate fully with their publication's legal and compliance teams throughout.

For freelancers, complaints are made against the publication, not the individual journalist. However, if your work is found to breach the Code, it can affect your professional reputation and your relationship with commissioning editors. Published adjudications appear on IPSO's website and are searchable by publication and clause.

Practical Tips for Compliance

• Always seek comment from the subject of a critical story before publication
• Keep detailed notes of your newsgathering methods, especially if using any form of subterfuge
• When in doubt about privacy, apply the “reasonable expectation” test — would the subject reasonably expect that activity to be private?
• If you make a mistake, correct it promptly and prominently — do not wait for a complaint
• Familiarise yourself with the full text of the Code and IPSO's published guidance notes before commencing any sensitive investigation

Practical Checklist

Run through this before publishing any story that could attract a Code complaint:

• Checked the relevant clause(s) of the Code against your story's content and newsgathering method
• Sought comment from the subject of any critical claim
• Headline accurately reflects the body of the article (Clause 1)
• No private information disclosed without a genuine public interest justification (Clause 2)
• Any characteristic (race, sex, disability, gender identity) mentioned only where genuinely relevant (Clause 12)
• If subterfuge or clandestine methods were used, public interest case documented in writing
• Children's identities in sexual offence or welfare cases protected
• Corrections procedure known and ready to activate if a factual error is discovered post-publication

Common Mistakes

• Not consulting the Code before publication: The most common compliance failure is treating the Code as something to check after a complaint arrives rather than a pre-publication tool.
• Conflating IPSO with a statutory regulator: IPSO is a voluntary self-regulator. Regulated publications sign a contract with IPSO; it has no power over unregulated publications and is not a government body.
• Assuming the public interest defence is automatic: Editors must be able to show they specifically considered the public interest and that it was the primary motivation for using intrusive methods.
• Failing to correct prominently online: A brief amendment buried in the footer of an article will not satisfy the “due prominence” requirement. The correction should be as prominent as the original error.
• Using a person's religion, ethnicity, or disability without relevance: Clause 12 is breached even when the reference is not pejorative if the characteristic is not genuinely relevant to the story.
• Confusing IPSO with IMPRESS: IMPRESS is the alternative press regulator recognised under the Royal Charter; The Guardian, FT, and some digital outlets are regulated separately or not at all. Always check which regulator (if any) governs your publication.

Red Flags

• A story where the only public interest justification for intrusive newsgathering is that the subject is famous
• A headline that is stronger than the evidence in the body of the piece
• A story that mentions a person's mental health condition, sexuality, or disability in a context where it is not relevant to the editorial purpose
• Newsgathering involving deception or subterfuge where no contemporaneous note of the public interest reasoning was made
• A correction that has been worded to minimise the original error rather than state it clearly

Primary Sources

• Editors' Code of Practice Committee — full Code text and guidance notes
• IPSO: The Editors' Code — adjudications, guidance, and complaints process
• NUJ Code of Conduct — ethical obligations for NUJ members
• Ofcom Broadcasting Code — for broadcast journalists
• IMPRESS Standards Code — alternative regulator for non-IPSO publications
• IPSO Code Hub — clause-by-clause index and adjudication summaries
• NUJ Code of Conduct Explained