The split for 2007 stood at 44% of complaints about hard-copy editions versus 56% for those appearing online.

While the PCC said that partly the rise in complaints about online coverage could be attributed to the fact that it is easier for people to complain via online means and providing a link to the story, it also provided examples of complaints that indicate newspapers were not showing the same consideration regarding the use of online content as they would for the content they publish in their papers.

The PCC, which saw its remit extended to include audio-visual material appearing on newspaper and magazine websites back in February last year, cited examples where sites had included clips from YouTube and other user-generated video footage. Complaints tended to come from perceived breaches of privacy or the guidance on identifying children.

Examples that were found in breach included a story in the Mail on Sunday about the family of the Duchess of York, showing a clip taken by a fellow guest at the place they were staying. The newspaper resolved the complaint, donating money to charity and ensuring the material would not be republished.

The PCC said of the findings: "The overarching points that arise from these complaints are: the commission expects editors to examine the full extent of any footage supplied to it, taking into consideration the manner in which it has been obtained; they should then ensure that any intrusive element can be properly justified in the public interest, or removed before publication."

In the same report, the PCC said that it had been asked to rule on 50 cases regarding comments made by readers on stories published by newspaper websites, but that only a "tiny percentage have fallen within its jurisdiction". It said that most are resolved by the comments being taken down, but reminded newspapers that it was possible for these to be in breach of the code and that editors should be aware of the implications of leaving them published.