Up to standard? A critique of IPSO's editors' Code of Practice and IMPRESS' Standards Code: Part 2

The second part of this article will complete a comparative analysis of the contents of the Editors' Code of Practice and Standards Code which commenced in the previous issue of Communications Law.1 It will address four substantive areas of the codes labelled sources, reporting of crimes and courts, independence, and discrimination and violence. It will draw comparisons with the content of 55 European national media codes to see whether the contents of these two codes address the issues which the majority of these codes address, and where appropriate draws upon the wording of the European media codes to discuss the breath of coverage and thresholds adopted in the two domestic codes. In addition, this article will compare the 'public interest' provisos within the two domestic codes with each other and the other European media codes studied here. Finally, the article considers the adequacy of both codes in addressing ethical issues which arise in digital media