Public deeply opposed to press regulators funded by wealthy individuals

The poll of 1,632 people across the UK shows just 4 per cent support for the way new press watchdog Impress is paid for.

Impress is a state-recognised regulator for the press which is funded almost entirely by former F1 chief Max Mosley.

Mr Mosley has given £4 million to controversial body, which was set up in the wake of the Leveson inquiry.

It was awarded the status of ‘approved regulator’ last October – despite being deeply unpopular with the majority of the British press.

However the poll, published today, found that the majority of the public reject the way this model operates.

It shows 49 per cent of people agree a press regulator should be paid for by newspapers, rather than rich individuals and trusts.

The majority of newspapers, including the Newsquest titles, are voluntary members of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) - an independent body which is funded by newspapers themselves.

The poll was commissioned by newspaper industry body News Media Association.

Its deputy chief executive Lynne Anderson said: “This survey demonstrates conclusively that a regulatory regime led by Impress - which is completely reliant upon funding from one wealthy individual, Max Mosley - cannot command the confidence of the public.

“IPSO is funded in its entirety by its member national, regional and local newspaper publishers which is the funding model the public want and expect from an industry which is committed to robust self-regulation.

“It is also abundantly clear from the poll that there is absolutely no public appetite for further activity from the Government in this area - such as the reopening of the Leveson Inquiry - when there are other much more pressing priorities at hand.”

The YouGov survey of 1,632 people across the UK also found that more than two-thirds (68 per cent) of people believe that news on social media platforms like Facebook – which are currently unregulated - should be subject at least to the same level of regulation as newspapers or even tighter regulation.

Britain’s press is subject to numerous criminal and civil laws covering news gathering and reporting.

The survey comes with just a few days left of a crucial Government consultation into the future of the British press.

Culture Secretary Karen Bradley is pondering whether to press ahead with the second part of the Leveson Inquiry into the British media, and whether to enforce Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which could leave papers open to costly libel actions.

Under Section 40 newspapers could be forced to pay for all court costs in libel actions - even if they win.

Local newspaper editors have warned that they face going out of business if such a law is implemented.

There are fears that if Ms Bradley did bring in Section 40 it would leave papers pressurised into joining Impress to avoid being at risk of such exemplary damages.

But speaking to the BBC yesterday, Mr Mosley (pictured) warned he will continue to pour his millions into funding Impress “for a very long time”.

Explaining his support for Section 40 he said: “If a newspaper insists on the luxury of a high court hearing then they pay both sides.

“But if they go to the thing that’s the whole point of Section 40, which is the inexpensive arbitration between them and the claimant, then it costs nobody anything.

“And of course that’s hugely beneficial to small newspapers, local newspapers, because if somebody rich takes them on it’s very intimidating, whereas if they can say to the rich person, ‘if you have got the money to sue us that’s fine, but we insist on going to inexpensive arbitration’.

“If the rich individual refuses then he pays the costs of both sides. It seems to me eminently fair.”

Mr Mosley has campaigned for tighter press controls following a ‘sting’ by the now defunct News of the World, which accused him of taking part in an “orgy”. He successfully sued the newspaper for invasion of privacy.