Yes, and you would believe an article by one of the papers most opposed to regulation for what reason? Come on Metaron, you read the WT and A! long enough to pick up on the loaded language, surely?
And let's make no mistake, by regulation we are talking about (for example) making newspapers more laible for unwarranted intrusions into people lives. An example is when the some of the British press systematicallym over several years hacked into the voicemail of celebrities and private individuals who had come to the attention of the press - like a 14 year-old girl who was abducted and killed and whose parents were given false hope when their daughter's voicemail was picked up (as they thought it was her, not some gutter-rat scum sucker).
We are not talking about any real restrictions on newspapers reporting real news. We are talking about protecting members of the public from tabloid newspapers who don't care whose lives they wreck if it sells some copies. And make no mistake that newpapers couldd still publish what they wanted... they would just be more accountable for their actions, and people wrongly slandered by the press would be more likely to see some justice.
The newspapers would rather self-regulate, which is a bit like sharks self-regulating if it is bad to eat people.
This article is slightly more intelligently written, but then the Guardian is a proper newspaper, not a hate-rag:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/30/press-regulation-royal-charter-approval