Is Mark Steyn a Victim of Censorship?
In my column in this week’s Spectator I’ve written about the bust-up between Mark Steyn and GB News. For those interested, I also talked about it in London Calling and the Weekly Sceptic. If you haven’t been following this brouhaha, Mark had been hosting a show on the channel for over a year, but took a break in December after suffering two heart attacks. When he was ready to return last month, GB News asked him to sign a contract which would have made his company liable for any fines imposed by Ofcom as a result of a “regulatory breach” unless he and his producers agreed to attend Ofcom training laid on by the channel and “incorporate Ofcom regulatory input” into the show. He refused and accused GB News of presenting him with a fait accompli that he couldn’t accept. Many people believe this is a free speech issue and the channel should not have asked Mark to give any such undertaking. But I’m not convinced – at least, not yet.
First let’s deal with the question of whether GB News has breached Mark’s speech rights. I should begin by saying I think Mark’s a terrific broadcaster. One of the things which makes him so good is his unwillingness to bend the knee to anyone – he is absolutely fearless. That’s why The Mark Steyn Show, which I sometimes appeared on, was such compelling viewing and regularly beat other news channels in its time slot. When it came to the most controversial issues of the day – Covid vaccines, the war in Ukraine, Net Zero – he didn’t just challenge the prevailing orthodoxy; he beat it to a pulp and then tossed it out with the rubbish.
Great television, but not always Ofcom-compliant television. Which created a bit of a headache for GB News. The regulator is investigating complaints about two of Mark’s shows, one from April in which he claimed that some statistics published by the U.K. Health Security Agency showed the triple-jabbed are more likely to die from Covid than the unvaccinated, and another from October in which he interviewed the American author Naomi Wolf, who described the rollout of the vaccines as “mass murder”. If those complaints are upheld, GB News could face significant fines. In 2008, for instance, Ofcom fined ITV £5,675,000 for breaching the Broadcasting Code. Even more seriously, Ofcom could withdraw GB News’s broadcasting licence if it concludes the channel isn’t taking the code seriously, as it did Russia Today’s.
It’s understandable, therefore, that GB News took steps to mitigate those risks. It wasn’t asking Mark to indemnify it for any losses arising from the ongoing investigations – just from future investigations if he and his producers didn’t follow the advice of the channel’s compliance officer. I don’t think making this a condition of Mark’s show continuing, given the regulatory environment it’s operating in, was a breach of his speech rights.
What about Ofcom? Is it, as James maintains, trying to suppress dissent? I thought the “coronavirus guidance” it issued in March 2020, which cautioned broadcasters about giving too much air time to critics of the Government’s public health guidance, was censorious, and the pro-free-speech organisation I run tried to challenge that guidance in the High Court. A judge refused our application for a judicial review, but I like to think we stayed Ofcom’s hand, making it more tolerant of sceptics than it would have been. Yes, it’s investigating complaints against Mark’s show, but it hasn’t tried to stop GB News drawing attention to vaccine injuries or featuring guests who robustly challenge the dominant narrative about Covid. For instance, it received dozens of complaints about an interview Dan Wootton did with Andrew Tate in which the controversial TikTok star played down the severity of the disease, but declined to investigate.
It may be legitimate to criticise Ofcom for holding GB News to a higher bar than other broadcasters. It hasn’t upheld any complaints about, say, the BBC for failing to challenge guests making misleading claims about the efficacy of the vaccines when they were first rolled out. But it hasn’t upheld any complaints against GB News either, so it would be premature to accuse it of double standards. There may yet be a fight worth having about that, but we need to wait and see what Ofcom does before taking up arms.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
GBNews should have moved heaven and earth to keep Steyn and make it work.
Ofcom should probably be abolished. Why do we need them?
We don’t need them. The government does if they are going to control the narrative.
OFCOM appears to have lost whatever sense of impartiality it may have started with, and it seeks only to set boundaries dictated by government that broadcasters may not stray from.
Mark is a superb broadcaster. I hope his health is regained to the point where he can perhaps have a channel somewhere on the internet so we can hear him speak.
The Mark Steyn show is available on Steyn online
Appreciate the sign-posting. It had passed me by somehow…
He’s back as Arum says at Steynonline.com. His show yesterday mentioned Toby and his views. Apparently Toby has been talking to someone at Ofcom about the cases mentioned in the article above. Mark says that is like talking to a judge during an on-going trial. He’s not very happy about it. Is Toby cosying up to Ofcom? Mark says he took Toby out to dinner a few weeks’ back – quite expensive. He said he won’t be doing that again after this.
Toby loses credibility as a supporter of free speech when he appears to be supporting Ofcom. He doesn’t seem to be aware of the background of the people who make Ofcom’s decisions as globalists and civil servants, as all government entities ore formed. The only way Ofcom can be unbiased is to change their decision makers to include some independent minded scientists and well-educated people whose first considerations are the facts rather than big Pharma’s biased output or governments impositions based on it.
Offcom has achieved the objective its founders wanted. The establishment version of events cannot be challenged, at least not by a broadcaster which would do it with vigour.
GBNews might think it’s actions protect its franchise so it can challenge government policy, albeit less strongly in future. The truth is a boundary is being built around critics and the space within will be shrunk so as to neuter critics.
toby is far too sanguine but the Speccie would not let him write his article if he did not give the benefit of the doubt to Fraser Nelson’s mates in the political class.
There may be more to Mark Steyn’s departure than is at first apparent. GB News is a business venture and as such it’s investors need a return on their investment. The current dearth of corporate advertisers may suggest that currently, advertising revenue is not sufficient to make their investment model worthwhile. Woke, ESG compliant, corporate advertisers may first wish to see a more Ofcom compliant GB News before allowing their product to appear on its broadcasts.
In short, the investors at GB News may be prepared to sacrifice Steyn if it can attract corporate advertising revenue.
So Mark S may be under the cosh from Ofcom, or he may not. Currently, he’s being investigated on two counts from 2022. Were he to stay at GB News, he’d have the sword of Damocles hanging over him since they insist Steyn’s company indemnify GBN against any possible future transgression in overstepping Ofcom rules.
Seems to me to be a lot of ‘tap dancing’ going on by you Toby to justify the above facts. If Mark is a ‘good boy’ and sticks to partisan rules laid down by Ofcom, he has nothing to fear. Except of course, the threat of penury were he to transgress in the opinion of Ofcom. May as well muzzle him and put handcuffs on him and have done with it. Steyn’s popularity stems from his fearlessness and honesty, characteristics Ofcom appear determined to stifle.
The Free Speech Union’s new motto ‘If you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to fear’
That isn’t quite what Toby has said. He said Mark Steyn would be liable in the event he doesn’t follow the advice of GB News’s compliance officer for a given show. So this sounds like he would not be made liable without warning whether what he planned to say would make him so. If this is the case, it seems he could have saved resigning until a later time if the compliance officer were to tell him to back off on a particular issue. But there may be a grey area that could impact spontaneity and there may be other clauses in the contract that would have disadvantaged him if he decided to resign, so it would be difficult to judge how onerous the new terms are without seeing all the details.
Indeed. But I just have a feeling that, for example, the conversation between Fox and Tucker Carlson would be more along the lines of “Tucker, please be careful but you’re the star of the show and we’ve got your back and our lawyers will fight the regulators every step of the way”. But then Fox is I think the No. 1 news channel in the US, backed by News Corp, and more or less cannot be cancelled.
Oh for gods sakes.
The slightest claim against the government one can’t 100% back by facts and Ofcom is all over you.
A barrage of lies supporting the government line and no problem.
Give me break.
I have a mental image of Toby being shoved off a train and herded into an Auschwitz barrack and him say “well, steady on before anyone jumps to conclusions, I haven’t seen any of us killed yet, so let’s not judge these uniformed gentlemen with their guns and their German shepherds prematurely.
Jeee sus.
I agree. The real problem is that Ofcom are no longer, if they ever where, trustworthy.
“the American author Naomi Wolf, (who) described the rollout of the vaccines as “mass murder.”
And who, cognisant of all the facts could disagree with that statement? If statements such as this, which verifiably contain a large element of truth are not permitted then Ofcom needs it’s rules rewriting or more realistically it should be abolished.
I cannot agree with Toby on this. The article is all Oliver Twist:
Toby is Oliver pleading to an overbearing Ofcom – “Please sir; can we have some more?
Pandering to your assailant is not the way forward.
Quite. What about the claims by media that people without masks are borderline murderers? Have they been investigated by Ofcom
Exactly. And those refusing the clot shots should be denied medical treatment.
Isn’t that right Esther? How’s the cancer coming along?
Very nicely put.
And the answer to the question in the title of this article is bloody obvious – YES. You can argue about who is doing the censoring – the government or Ofcom or GBNews, but it’s censorship. Why the hell shouldn’t Steyn say whatever he bloody well wants. Who cares if he lies, or uses “hate speech”? Adults can switch it off and check what he says against other sources and kids should be getting supervised by their parents. Isn’t that what freedom of speech is?
None of the rigmarole matters. What matters is the outcome – free speech is stifled by the state. The issue in this case happens to be free speech about what looks like the worst medical scandal in history, ‘mass murder’ indeed.
Please get a grip on what matters, Toby. You’ve worked wonders in the last few years and have a chance now to make a stand with Steyn.
Much as I appreciate Toby’s stance on various things, I feel that he tends to far towards the status quo.
Ofcom is mostly useless, the only parts of it worth having are those that deal with the technical aspects of radio and television and interference problems. Sadly even those have been muzzled and poor technological solutions allowed to be widely used even though they do not meet the necessary standards.
Any kind of argument about content is for the courts.
“Ofcom is mostly useless”
Worse than that. They are quite effective at censorship and promoting establishment narrative.
Protecting his Tory mates. I’m beginning to believe he is controlled opposition.
‘… just from future investigations if he and his producers didn’t follow the advice of the channel’s compliance officer…’
Isn’t that censorship? Steyne only allowed to say what the producers say he can say, which will be limited by what Ofcom says is permissible to say.
But the issue Mr Toby misses is it requires a certain amount of clairvoyance on behalf of Steyne, in that he may believe he is adhering to GBNews’ self-censorship rules but in fact isn’t.
He/GBNews is under investigation for stating that the mRNA snake-oil has killed people, and he interviewed people who had lost nearest and dearest.
Telling the truth these days breaches ‘the rules’.
Of course this is censorship: This doesn’t necessarily mean stuff is going to be prohibited, just that anything which is supposed to be published must get the approval of a political oversight gremium first or that anything which has been published may need to be retracted or modified based on the ex post factum interventions of such a political oversight gremium.
Whilst I’m sure it’ll be there somewhere, I could not immediately find any reference to Ofcom’s duties being to ensure that broadcasters give balanced views.
It does, however, say that the power of it’s (completely white) Board come directly from government. So with that in mind, which view is it likely to favour?
.
I’m a fan of Mark Steyn and GB News, and Toby Young. Like everybody else, they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
None of them are the problem. Ofcom is the problem, and that’s just a reality that can’t be ignored.
I’ve got a lot of respect for Toby, but he does seem to be becoming more mainstream by the week. I also listen to London’s Calling and the Weekly Sceptic podcasts. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish his opinions from all those others who’ve been gaslighting us for the past three years (at least). It’s becoming a concern.
Is the Steyn thing a free speech issue? Yes. Unless your idea of free speech is speech that’s free as long as it’s inline with the government narrative. According to Toby, MSM were under no stranglehold during Covid; that’s what I’d expect to read in the Guardian. And it’s complete and total boll*cks. I know, you know it, Toby knows it. Pressure was being applied from somewhere, and Ofcom was definitely a player. So why is he defending bodies like ofcom? I like to believe it’s because Toby’s natural tendency is to sit on the fence. And that’s ok when you don’t know what’s on each side of the fence. We do though. The fence divides good and evil. Toby, please choose your side.
Still think that 1) TY is still hoping that appeasement and moderation will win through and 2) he still can’t quite believe that people he thought were his friends and from his circle could be so utterly wicked. But anyway – we’re here on DS, uncensored, debating some interesting articles with various points of view.
I think he’s very unwilling to lose his wife and children.
Which is why he now concentrates on free speech issues, where nobody really denies that speech is being restricted but instead argues that restriction is good.
It’s not a comfortable position to be in
Truth always hurts the system.
For the rest of us, choose anarchy.
an – without
archos – leader
No firebombs, no fighting with coppers. Just answerable to no man.
Control your emotions.
Control your costs.
It’s all you can do.
A little advice to Toby: when in a hole stop digging. The Steyn coverage has not been your finest hour. Just accept it and move on. Repeating your points from London Calling seems to be convincing nobody. I won’t go through all the counter-points as others on this thread have done that. I will just add that if Ofcom is the paper tiger you imply it is then why is GB News so afraid of it that it won’t even attempt to defend Mark Steyn? OfCom and its government overlords are the real problem here and they should be the object of our complaint. By appearing to defend Ofcom you are just putting yourself (and this site) in firing line for the same criticism.
Seconded.
Instead of pussyfooting around Ofcom, I wish the FSU would draw up a free speech charter which it could invite the government and the broadcasters to sign, or provide reasoned objections to doing so. This should be handled as a public process so that the public can see the the debate between the FSU and the other parties as it occurs.
Why are you even asking this question. Lets say that there are several broadcasters on the airwaves that you disgaree with in terms of tone and content. Fine,all the better. I was considering buying a new radio recently and then reminded myself of the dreary uniformity of British broadcasting and so decided against it. What is this one voice nonsense I don’t recoginise it as part of my culture.The clot shots and perfide Albion aren’t exactly cutting edge stories. Are we even in the same universe anymore?
Look at yourself are you richer this year than last year. Has this decade been a celebration of wealth and freedom. Does the country seem to be a happier place. Whenever I go abroad I get a stronger impression upon return of returning to a prison what with the cameras and surveillance. How does that lead to a happy life? Don’t let your personal success distract you from the reality of the construction of the black iron prison.
Welcome to the Democratic People’s Republic of Britain. Ofcom are a disgrace but they won’t be dismantled because they are an important part of the machine now. Schwaab’s recent speech about how in future you will need your digital ID to access the internet chilled me to the bone.
We need to stop seeing ourselves as passive recipients. For heaven’s sake this cabal is clearly weaker than ever. It would be a huge mistake to see ourselves as weaker than them. Our big issue is that we have not offered up any alternative and so nature abhors a vacuum. This is what it really amounts to, not a presence but an absence.
This strikes at the heart of the problem
Now I am a great fan (special friend) of Tobes + the rest of the anti slide into 1984 spokespeople but…
We ain’t achieving a lot are we
Beyond squeaking from the sideline combined with some fine words + noble oratory
Not a lot has been achieved
Doris still praised for his faxine
It has to be said some are having ‘a very good war’
With profiles that could only have been wet dreamt of pre Rona Demic
Could they be bought off with a bauble + annuity?
Our direction of travel is truly shocking for our children’s futures
The USA far further down the Path to Sodom and Gomorrah than us
Unless – to borrow a phrase ‘we take back control’ + have a political party that represents our common sense views by the next General Election
We are ABSOLUTELY SUCKED
No alternative vision just the vanity of I told you so and world-weariness that has passed for wisdom for six decades in this country, sadly. You can slag off everything until the cows come home if you are a serious person then you will acknowldge the seriouseness of the situation and you will see your pastoral role in this affair because it is a serious situation that we are heading into and optimism and pessimism count for nothing in the face of reality.
You either wake it up or you die. I am happy to acknowledge reality. I grew up abroad and came to this country in 1979 and frankly it was like arriving in paradise. Just the lack of threat, the civil society, the old ladies with their turbans and young lads that worked down the motorbike factory. And of course the language with its mysteries. I agree with John Luis Borges when he said that English literature is one of the greatest adventures in the history of humankinf.
Is it just me who suspects that Toby secretly aspires to match the achievements of that great and good man, Booker T. Washington?
I have to say, ‘perfectly reasonable to ask him to abide by Ofcom’s rules’, sounds awfully like ‘only obeying orders’.
I struggle with this article for 2 reasons.
Ofcom has not shown itself to be an advocate for free speech and appears to be heavily biased (for example how it dealt with complaints about BBCs programs on Covid vaccinations). So here we have an institution which does not follow straight lines in terms of issuing warnings or fines.
Which brings me to the second issue. This article suggests a degree of self censorship. Spontaneity and free speech. will suffer.
So I can understand Mark Steyns stance.
Like millions of others, I’ve simply switched to Steyn online. Shame on GBNews. They will pay a heavy price.
Here is a properly challenging defence of free speech in the media:
https://youtu.be/v1HG3e9IH5A
I accept that GB News is walking a tightrope and Ofcom (acting on behalf of the terrified Establishment) will do everything it possibly can to close it down.
However, trying to claim that Mark Steyn hasn’t been a victim of censorship is stupid when it is quite obvious that that is exactly what has happened.
Was he allowed Free Speech? NO.
Was he told how he had to broadcast or what he had to say and was that restricted by Ofcom and GB News? YES.
That IS Censorship.
Laurence Fox has the right idea when he is forced to parrot Ofcom’s propaganda: read it out like the talking clock, make it absolutely clear that it’s b=ll=cks, and ridicule them.
Shame on Toby Young for writing the article the way he did. Truth matters. Furthermore there is no more insidious power that The Media holds than the power to ignore. Toby chooses to ignore critical facts here. 1. Steyn was watched by millions of viewers and yet these Ofcom “investigations” (I prefer to call them “witch hunts”) were as a result of a few dubious and mysterious entities “complaining” about the content of his program. 2. In both complaints there’s very little doubt that Mark or his guest was pointing out the truth. 3. Toby says that “Ofcom fined ITV £5,675,000 for breaching the Broadcasting Code.” except that the offences were nothing to do with free speech, in fact ITV was facilitating cheating on their games / reality TV shows by rigging telephone voting. Toby Young failed to mention that the Ofcom witch hunt against truthful free speech on the Mark Steyn Show has ZERO in common with what ITV did. The reason Mark Steyn is targeted by a few mysterious “complainants” out of millions of viewers is that he constantly hovers over the target and delivers his payload with humour and deadly force at the same time. Ofcom and… Read more »
in kowtowing to Ofcom, GBNews is completely dumbed down. Yes, it has some challenges to mainstream narrative but it is now so much weaker. You can just feel the censors sword hanging over everyone as they speak. GBNews has lost its edge and I now don’t see it surviving. What they need to understand is, those who watch/listen to GBNews do so precisely because they can see/hear the things they can’t on any other channels. We don’t get balance on BBC or Sky and, l for one, don’t want it on GBNews. I want to hear the views and discussions I can’t hear anywhere else. Otherwise, what is the point of it? Watch them get rid of Neil Oliver then it really is all over.