This study outlines the changes throughout history in press regulations in
the UK while examining their current state and aims to explore the problems
surrounding them. Primary sources are closely examined to clarify the following
three points. The first point covers the tradition of self-regulation by the
press continuing throughout the second half of the 20th century, and how these
self-regulatory bodies demonstrated that they were not able to sufficiently fulfill
their regulatory objectives. To address this problem, several press regulators
were formed, including GCP, PC, and PCC, which have now been reorganized
as IPSO and IMPRESS. The second point compares IPSO and IMPRESS, covering
their similarities such as their core organizational structures, standards, and
tasks, which are mostly the same, while also covering the differences such as
methods of regulation( IPSO is a reformed version of PCC based on purely selfregulatory
methods, while IMPRESS imposes co-regulation approved under
Royal Charter), membership rates in the press (IPSO has many members,
while IMPRESS has few), financial resources (IPSO is fully funded by members,
while IMPRESS relies on donations), and the degree of autonomy and
effectiveness (IPSO is somewhat substandard, while IMPRESS maintains high
standards). The third point covers how the press regulatory bodies should be
integrated into IPSO in consideration of the consistency in regulation, constitutional principles regarding freedom of press, and the tradition of press self-regulation,
but in order to avoid the failures of past regulatory bodies, it is crucial to
ensure its autonomy (such as by reviewing the authority of the RFC) and
effectiveness (such as by rationalising standards of investigation and financial
penalty systems)