GB News Show Broke Impartiality Rules by Not Including Left-Wing Views, Ofcom Rules. That’s Rich
A GB News programme hosted by Conservative MPs Esther McVey and Philip Davies broke impartiality rules by failing to represent “an appropriately wide range” because it didn’t include any Left-wing viewpoints, Ofcom has ruled. The Telegraph has the story.
The TV channel was found to be in breach of the broadcasting code for the third time this year over a show featuring an interview with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt.
Ofcom said Esther McVey and Philip Davies, two sitting Conservatives who present a Saturday morning show, failed to properly scrutinise the Chancellor when he was interviewed ahead of the Budget in March.
The broadcast watchdog received 45 complaints about the March 11th episode of ‘Saturday Morning with Esther and Philip’.
An investigation found that the programme was “overwhelmingly reflective of the viewpoints of different strands of opinion within the Conservative Party”.
It added: “There were only very limited references to wider perspectives on U.K. economic and fiscal policy in the context of the forthcoming budget.
“For example, no real attention was given anywhere in the programme to the viewpoints of politicians, political parties, organisations or individuals that either, for example, criticised, opposed or put forward policy alternatives to the viewpoints given by the three Conservative politicians.”
The broadcasting code requires impartiality on “matters of major political and industrial controversy” and says that “an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight”.
Ofcom has the power to impose fines, demand corrections or in extreme cases remove licences for breaching the code, although GB News’ breach was not seen as serious enough to warrant a penalty. …
Ofcom said that all three MPs had been in broad agreement on the principle that taxes should be cut to boost the economy.
Worth reading in full.
If failure to include Left-wing views in a TV show is a breach, why is a failure to include Right-wing views – a frequent failing of mainstream broadcasters – not also a breach? Or is this yet another instance where it only goes one way? What about the persistent failure to include anti-Net Zero viewpoints, anti-lockdown viewpoints or anti-Covid-vaccination viewpoints in mainstream TV shows? Whole swathes of opinion are regularly excluded from mainstream broadcasting. But when GB News dares to air a show where no one on that particular programme thinks the U.K.’s current historically high tax levels shouldn’t be cut, it’s suddenly a problem deserving of reprimand. Non-woke views are censored; woke views are mandatory.
GB News said it was “disappointed” by the ruling and that Ofcom had an “imprecise” definition of “due impartiality”. A spokesman said: “We take compliance seriously, and we believe our programme embraced this. We will reflect on Ofcom’s view.”
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.
Ofcom if it should exist at all should confined to technical regulation of the broadcast spectrum and related matters.
Others may be able to think of valid examples, but my starting point would be to assume we do not need any regulation of content.
Ofcom should/would only exist in a Communist or Fascist state. Another useless globalist teat sucking crew of pigs.
BBC and state owned propaganda the same.
Since when has the Bolshevik Corp, ITV, Sly et al even attempted to be ‘balanced’ about anything? Don’t pay the BBC license. Defund Ofcom. Never watch the fake news.
Absolutely. Ofcom have undeniably been granted, and have granted themselves, massive political influence, and this is set to expand exponentially when the Online Safety Bill passes. Who is there to monitor and regulate this influence? Who is there to guard the guards?
Who – once they have become the arbiter of what we’re allowed to see and hear – will have the willingness or power to prevent them from abusing their position; to stave off their hijacking, like other NGO’s, by political activists (assuming it hasn’t already happened); and from becoming more sinister an agent of vested interests and political agitators than any of the organisations they claim to regulate?
I think there’s a good argument to be made for Ofcom doing it’s job properly and regulating the BBC, as most people have to fund it, to ensure it represents all acceptable points of view (views such as holocaust denial aren’t representative of the vast majority of the population and shouldn’t be aired on TV). Obviously it would be better if the licence fee was scrapped, but until that happens the BBC needs to be forced to be balanced. Other channels should be able to be biased towards left wing, right wing, or any other point of view and if people don’t like a channel’s political bias they don’t have to watch it and indirectly help fund it by increasing the channels viewing figures and advertising value.
I don’t think it’s possible to enforce “balance” on any media organisation, especially one controlled by the state. The BBC should go, and so should Ofcom.
You mean the British Brainwashing Corporation that thinks Obama and Biden are “good” but Trump is “bad”. That thinks Palestine is “good” but Israel is “bad”. That is insistent that climate change is an emergency and all caused by humans all based on zero evidence. That promotes the leftist agenda’s of equality diversity race gender and climate like they were things that all of polite society should accept. NOPE we don’t accept that at all and GB News helps in that regard without turning into the David Icke Show. GB news will speak of issues the BBC simply omit, and then it is up to us to go investigate that stuff for ourselves. If all we have is the BBC we would never know of that stuff because they don’t mention it, because they don’t want to put progressive agenda’s at risk.
An investigation found that the programme was “overwhelmingly reflective of the viewpoints of different strands of opinion within the Conservative Party”.
I haven’t watched Question Time for at least 15 years – and I understand that the bias has become far worse. However, when I did watch and they had the likes of Michael Hestletine, a “right on” comedian, a labour politician and someone from The LibDems on the panel, the show would be “overwhelmingly reflective of the viewpoints of different strands of opinion within the labour Party”. I didn’t hear any complaints from Offcom then.
Ofcom itself js a tool of the hard left. GBN gave them the scent of blood when it dropped Mark Steyn.
GBN should go after Ofcom, expose the pedigree and track record of its members, make them the story.
Don’t take a backward step, keep attacking.
good shout
Correct but there has been plenty of spitting fury about Russel Brand but not much about Mark Steyn.
At risk of sounding like a broken record: I doubt GB News will still be allowed to broadcast by time of run-up to GE. Banning RT set a useful precedent – no, citizen, you can’t watch any news outlet you choose, signed “your Conservative government”, on behalf of ‘the common good’.
New parlour game: guess the surnames of the 45 complainants to OFCOM. How about: Maitlis, Campbell, O’Brien, Jones, Major, May, Heseltine, Hammond?
I also wonder how many of the names feature on multiple complaints against GBN. I suspect there is is a regular group of “professional” anti-GB News complainers.
There certainly is a group who have gone after all companies that advertise on GB News.
I think some of the usual suspects (Hope not Hate etc.) are involved.
Support Mark Steyn who has two active legal cases against Ofcom in progress.
Jeremy Hunt isn’t left-wing? ROFL!
Not a problem. GB News should always invite a “left wing” voice to spar with two or three others with a “right wing” viewpoint for what is in effect a rhetorical gang bang. The left wing person is left looking ridiculous and thoroughly shouted down.
That is exactly what the mainstream channels do but in reverse.
Part of the issue – as with the orchestrated advertising boycott – is that many people are refusing to appear on the channel in order to delegitimise it.
As Joseph Heller wrote, “Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” The only MSM outlet I watch is GB News, ever since its launch in june 2021. I have noted an almost craven approach to impartiality of which Uriah Heep would be proud. Dolan and Wootton are particularly egregious examples. Self preservation tactics don’t seem to work for GB though. Ask Mark Steyn.
Looking on the bright side, they do seem to be attracting more advertisers. Money talks.
GBNews had the opportunity to put Ofcom back in their box once and for all, but funked the opportunity. All they had to do was stand behind Mark Steyn when they went for him, but no, they were too craven.
I think the point was that the show was hosted by two Tory MPs interviewing Tory ministers. How would you feel if the BBC had two Labour MPs interviewing Kier Starmer?
The difference is that everyone who wants to watch TV is forced to pay a TV license, about £150, to the BBC and therefore the BBC should represent everyone. Whereas GB News doesn’t force anyone to pay them money, so why can’t GB News have the freedom to do what it wants? If people don’t like it, they don’t have to watch it.
But if you don’t like the BBC you still have to pay the licence fee, so the BBC has to cater for everyone.
What has the BBC got to do with it?
Anyway, Hunt is a raving lefty and a senior member of a left wing government.
Whilst you are right, don’t forget that the BBC’s “28 Gate” exercise with “28 Senior Climate Scientists” who ran an agit-prop symposium with senior BBC producers concluding that the BBC need have NO genuine science supporting people interviewed or appearing because they didn’t deserve the ‘oxygen of publicity.’ After an (unsuccessful) legal challenge pointing out that this ran directly against the BBC’s Charter promise of “balance”, the BBC refused to reveal the identities of their 28 Climate “expert scientists”, backed up with two QCs employed at licence payers’ expense. Of course, when a copy of the list was eventually found online and revealed, only a couple were actual “scientists” (of the Activist variety) and the rest comprised of senior propagandists from Fiends of the Earth, Greenpiss and the rest, with the odd vicar and a spook from the US embassy thrown in for good measure. Since then, the only time I recall anyone appearing on the BBC not enthusiastically Anti “Carbon”, was when they invited Nigel Lawson on (to talk about Energy). Within minutes the obviously orchestrated howls of outrage were echoing and the BBC promised for their mistake (of inviting the outstanding Secretary of State for Energy to comment)… Read more »
Thanks for that. I’ve quoted one of Marianna Spring’s colleagues a few times here; he once wrote to me some sentences along the lines of “we are not obliged to give airtime to erroneous views”.
That is like the argument that there were 4 white people in a TV studio and no females, Muslims or wheelchairs. Why does absolutely every program or advert have to be “diverse”?
I think you are confusing diverse with balanced. Politicians by definition have a political viewpoint to put across – that is why they are on the programme. I have no problem with a party political broadcast but it should be clear that is what it is. There is no other British broadcaster that uses sitting MPs to host serious programs (I don’t count Have I News).
“There is no other British broadcaster that uses sitting MPs to host serious programs”
So what? Who cares? Nobody is forced to watch or fund any news channel… except the BBC.
Very important point you make. Anyone can switch off Fox News or GB News but if we switch the BBC off we are still paying for it anyway. Imagine the spitting fury from pretend to save the planet leftists if they were forced to fund GB News.
So you never saw George Galloway hosting.
Curious.
We don’t need Labour or Lib Dem or Green MPs to host shows because all the people doing that job already are left wing. Probably GB News need Tory MPs because there are simply no right wing presenters or journalists any more.
If it were 2 Labour MP’s you would be fine with it. And if you weren’t fine with it, in all likelihood you would stay silent. Why are people like you never satisfied with having about 90% of the media on your liberal progressive side and always look to scrutinise right of centre media as illegitimate and even criminal as if all of polite society should only listen to BBC and SKY and there must be something wrong with them if they don’t? Do you want the media to be 100% leftist? Yep, I think that would probably give you a nice warm glow inside.
Attention Ofcom: I ditched my TV licence 4 years ago because of a disgusting ” Question Time” bias. And this left wing quango will be ignored. Pray for the re-election of President Trump 🙏
Ha ha ha ah jeez. ——The BBC NEVER allow anyone to question climate change dogma. They present it all as ultimate truth……Where is the impartiality and fairness in that? Do Offcom plan to pull up the BBC for this? —-Ofcourse not.—- Are leftists not happy with 90% of the media on their side? Do they want the whole 100%. ——YES they do.
Mark Steyn has chipped in here…
https://www.steynonline.com/13779/ofcommed-again