This is not 'news' but it is interesting and potentially disturbing.
If you followed the tortuous Leveson Inquiry you'll be aware that two press regulators have emerged to replace the old Press Complaints Commission.
One is the newspaper industry-backed Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), the other rejoices in the name of Impress (Independent Monitor for the Press).
A handful of newspapers and magazines including the Guardian and FT have refused to join either but the overwhelming majority have gone with Ipso despite criticism that self-regulation doesn't work.
Part of the appeal may be Ipso's refusal to sign up to a Royal Charter on the basis that this would amount to "government control of the press".
In contrast, Impress has no such qualms:
A would-be press regulator has confirmed it has the backing of a small number of local publishers in its bid to become the recognised watchdog for the industry.
Most of the regional and national press has recognised the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) as the industry regulator following the abolition of the old Press Complaints Commission.
However Ipso has made clear it has no intention of applying for recognition as a press regulator under the government’s Royal Charter, on the grounds that this would amount to state regulation of the press.
Now a rival regulator, Impress, has confirmed that it is seeking recognition under the Charter after winning the backing of a number of small publishing groups.
Its 13 members include a Scottish-based crowd-funded investigative website, The Ferret, hyperlocal online publishers such as the Caerphilly Observer, The Lincolnite, Your Harlow and Staffordshire-based A Little Bit of Stone,
According to its website, the new body is "blazing a trail for a fairer, better kind of press regulation":
Do you believe that a publisher regulated by Impress has breached our standards code? We are here to help.
We will award a trusted journalism mark to news publishers who meet our standards. We will give these publishers the freedom to report hard-hitting stories and the responsibility to behave fairly if complaints are made against them. We will have the power to decide on complaints which publishers cannot resolve.
Ominously however the one (former) tabloid journalist on the board resigned and withdrew her support eight months ago. According to Press Gazette:
Former Sun journalist Sue Evison said she is now backing the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the successor body to the Press Complaints Commission which most major newspaper and magazine publishers belong to.
So who is on the board of Impress? You can read the full list here but one name stands out:
Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
Yes, the CEO of a highly partisan political lobby group that actively seeks to stifle debate about smoking and health is now a self-styled press regulator. You couldn't make it up.
Naturally Impress is keen to emphasise Deborah's journalistic background:
As a producer and programme editor in current affairs and documentaries she developed and ran a wide range of programmes for ITV and Channel 4.
Truth is, she's far better known for her work with ASH for whom she has worked for 12-13 years. And she was hardly shy about her 'accomplishment' in delivering a highly contentious piece of legislation. In fact, she revelled in it.
If you want to know what kind of body Impress may turn out to be, I recommend you read Mick Hume, former editor of Spiked and author of two books about press freedom and freedom of speech - There is No Such Thing as a Free Press… And We Need One More Than Ever, and Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech?
Writing in December 2013, Hume had plenty to say.
I'll give the final word to former Guardian editor Peter Preston who wrote about Impress last year. Headlines can be misleading but this one is pretty clear:
Newspaper regulator Impress is repressive, dangerous - and daft