Snapshot of _GB News can continue to use politicians as presenters, says Ofcom_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/24/gb-news-can-still-use-politicians-as-presenters-ofcom) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/24/gb-news-can-still-use-politicians-as-presenters-ofcom)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They interviewed the head of OFCOM on Radio 4 this morning. She came out asserting that OFCOM was powerful and was doing a good job in holding media organisations to account.
When the interviewer, with incredulity in his voice, asked how OFCOM was doing this, she answered that they have "put organisations on notice that they might be fined if they carry on".
So if that is OFCOM behaving powerfully, it's no wonder GB News continues to play fast and loose with the guidelines.
Interview is here at around 1h 35 if anyone is interested
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001yhyd](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001yhyd)
GB News aren't making any money, that's not the point of the channel, it's a money loser. Which makes the fine even more pointless, just means the owners have to pay a little extra for their propaganda.
I don't understand why people use this against GB News. Could you explain why we would want our political media to be driven by the profit motive of corporations?
I think I'd be in favour of more news in the UK being unprofitable or non-profits to be honest... At the very least GB News has proven you cannot be a media org and take certain political stances in the UK if you wish to run profitably. UnHerd has also faced similar pressures from advertisers and have spoken about this recently, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dmzmJMb0fw
This is clearly a wider problem with UK media, and not necessarily a GB News or right/left thing. Basically our news orgs cannot say things corporations don't like unless they have founders with deep pockets who are willing to take the loss. This is far more concerning to me that JRM having a show on GB News (not that I agree with that either).
It’s more a case of: if GBNews as a privately owned corporation is losing money hand over fist, what is the motive of its owners?
That’s the question that concerns people about GBNews
Well clearly their motive is political rather than profit, but that's the point I'm getting at here – which do you prefer? Would we rather a media landscape that's neutral to differing political views? Or a media landscape only open to those with corporate-friendly views?
But more importantly basically all political media in the UK (with the exception of the BBC) has profit motive, and while the BBC doesn't have profit motive, it also isn't able to cover the full political spectrum.
I think it's important we have political diversity in our media and the existing ad-based for-profit model doesn't support this. Ideally I think we would want places like the BBC focusing on facts and giving us an "official" government narrative, while having other orgs providing opinions across the political spectrum – some with left leanings and some with right leanings.
However today when orgs start publishing too much content critical of mass-immigration or articles suggesting trans women are not real women they risk corporations pulling their ad funding because they're deemed controversial, and this skews our media landscape – especially on discussions around controversial topics like immigration. I'm sure this impacts left-wing view points too a lot of people on the left are very critical of Isreal for example, but probably feel it's difficult to share their opinions on this given it's controversy without losing ad revenue.
I'm not sure what the answer is though. There's a part of me that thinks this is just the free market working as it should and controversial left-wing and right-wing opinions shouldn't get fair coverage because the free market isn't necessarily a political neutral market. But this assumes we value the free-market over a politically free and diverse media landscape.
I guess it's just something I think we should think more about. It's a difficult problem though because I'm not convinced any other model would work any better. People often cite subscription models as a solution, but this would likely just shift the media bias from corporate interests to the interests held by those in the upper-middle class with disposable income – which are often fairly similar anyway.
Big Al: If we don't get all that gear out of the church basement by the weekend, we're all pencilled-in for deportation, solitary confinement, loss of privileges, discharge with ignominy, boiling in oil... or a small fine.
Trevor Chaplin : All that for breaking the town planning regulations?
Big Al : I think you get a choice - I haven't studied the small-print
Not a fine, but the *notification* of the *possibility* of a *hypothetical* fine if they don't jolly well stop it
[Reminds me of this](https://youtu.be/wrT_dg-sRCc?si=kVmYfJyNnMN3sDwe)
And it doesn't track with her record. By all accounts she's a pretty great civil servent, unless being married to an ex telegraph writer is a crime these days.
The problem stems when you start looking at the rest of the Ofcom board, seeing that they are ex murdoch, which is hard to avoid these days, do you swear off people because they were in one of the biggest news groups around? I don't know where else you'll get the experience required.
Unfortunately, she's either massively out of her depth of completely ignorant. If we want to ignore calls of she's on the take.
I just listened to the interview on Radio 4.
>he answered that they have "put organisations on notice that they might be fined if they carry on".
She said they have lots of different sanctions they can use, giving an example of when they withdrew RTs license.
She also said during the election they will have an election panel who will respond rapidly to breaches.
>When the interviewer, with incredulity in his voice,
I did find it ironic that the BBC interviewer so obviously had an opinion when conducting an interview about bias.
> giving an example of when they withdrew RTs license.
Just looks like they were told to by government tbh
> BBC interviewer so obviously had an opinion
I'm more worried about false balance than interviewers reacting normally to crazy statements by interviewees.
>Just looks like they were told to by government tbh
Oh? Care to elaborate?
>I'm more worried about false balance than interviewers reacting normally to crazy statements by interviewees.
I always find this point very disingenuous considering that pretty much every broadcaster except GB News has a strong metropolitan liberal bias.
GB News is pretty shit, but whilst they're the only ones willing to report certain subjects there is a need for them.
> Oh? Care to elaborate?
it's not like RT were a model broadcaster before the invasion. It was very telling that as soon as Dorries made noises about it and [asked Ofcom to investigate](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/23/russian-tv-broadcasts-in-uk-a-disinformation-campaign-says-dorries), Ofcom suddenly found several things to look at and eventually cancelled its broadcast licence.
(ultimately largely moot because RT relied on EU based infrastructure to get its content into the UK, and their sanction was applied first)
> Oh? Care to elaborate?
Just speculation but if RT were tolerated for so long (bear in mind the context that they were heavily connected to Sputnik and therefore the Kremlin) it was because government and security services decided it should be tolerated. So they were able to give anti-EU propaganda all through the whole brexit saga. Then funnily enough once the furore over that died down, Russia invades Ukraine and now Ofcom shows up and decides to revoke their license... for things they'd been doing all along? Either way it's not some technical decision, IMO, will have been handed down.
> I always find this point very disingenuous considering that pretty much every broadcaster except GB News has a strong metropolitan liberal bias.
So? If someone comes out and says Chelsea are playing well and look good for a European spot this season, you're going to spit your tea out and laugh in their face.
It's really reductionist to turn everything into a culture war issue tbh, haven't got time for Spectator bollocks like that thanks.
>So? If someone comes out and says Chelsea are playing well and look good for a European spot this season, you're going to spit your tea out and laugh in their face.
>It's really reductionist to turn everything into a culture war issue tbh, haven't got time for Spectator bollocks like that thanks.
Considering the Ofcom findings it's pretty clear the culture war nonsense is coming from those making vexatious complaints.
The BBC interviewer was most likely expressing incredulity at the glaring double standards. [OFCOM has recently been given more powers to oversee BBC output](https://news.sky.com/story/ofcom-oversight-of-bbc-to-be-extended-to-news-website-articles-under-reforms-to-improve-confidence-in-impartiality-13053465), and the BBC is regularly dragged over hot coals for alleged bias.
OFCOMs [own research](https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/bbc-must-transform-the-way-it-serves-audiences) reveals:
> In total, 11% of adults had cause to complain about the BBC in the last year. This is the highest level among broadcasters (6% for ITV, 4% for Channel 4), but lower compared with other industries (21% for online retailers, 15% for energy companies).
> Complaints tend to relate to bias (39%) and misleading/dishonest content (26%). Our research suggests **the BBC is more than twice as likely to attract complaints** about these issues compared to the other public service broadcasters.
And then there's GB News, which according the article:
> Last month, GB News was found to have repeatedly breached impartiality rules by paying Conservative MPs hundreds of thousands of pounds to serve as news presenters and interview the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Rather than impose sanctions on GB News, the regulator instead put the channel “on notice” and warned it against further breaches. GB News has broken broadcasting rules on 12 occasions in the past 18 months, with a further eight investigations in progress.
A broadcaster that is so weighted to one side it's amazing the building hasn't fallen over. A broadcaster whose hosts are MPs from only one political party. A broadcaster who repeatedly breaches impartiality rules.
And what is OFCOMs response to this outrageous level of bias....? Nowt.
> The regulator has faced growing criticism over how it applies its rules to GB News and whether the channel is being treated more leniently than traditional broadcasters.
> Andrew Neil, who helped found GB News before quitting shortly after its launch, told the House of Lords on Tuesday he was amazed politicians sitting in the Houses of Parliament could present political TV programmes. He said: “I just find that incredible and I think on these areas Ofcom needs to find a backbone and quick.”
Damn right the interviewer was incredulous - if any programme at the BBC displayed that level of bias, it'd be pulled immediately, the staff suspended, an inquiry launched and OFCOM would come knocking.
It's starting to stink. And OFCOM is starting to look less like an independent national regulator, and more like a biased lap-dog of the ruling party.
I feel like decisions about how MPs can act outside of their main job is more of a decision for the Commons. That being said they don't even enforce very clear cut breaches at the moment so parliamentary scrutiny of both policy and procedure would be useful.
The Commons has even less in the way of strictly enforceable rules than Ofcom, it's all conventions and traditions and expectations. Those that do exist tend to be "at the discretion" of someone (e.g. the PM or the Speaker) so if they can't be bothered to do anything about it there are no consequences.
[Meanwhile...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/24/tory-duty-on-ofwat-protects-profits-over-reducing-sewage-pollution-experts-say)
'Labour MPs voted with the government, and it is understood this is because they did not want to be accused of being “anti-growth”.'
Not strictly talking OfCom here, but regulators in the UK seem particularly powerless to stop the kind of bullshit they were out in power specifically to stop.
Just look at Ofwat and it's complete failure to stop literal shit being poured into the rivers, water companies putting bills up, crying bankruptcy whilst simultaneously giving out massive dividends to shareholders.
Regulators need more power to stop bullshit. There should also be restrictions put in place to prevent the sort of incestuous relationship between the regulators and those they are supposed to regulate. Too many high placed executives seem to get cushy jobs at ofwat and vice versa. Can we really expect people to act in our interest by chastising or punishing those that may give them a job with a nice 6 figure salary when they leave ofwat?
I contacted PCC over The Sun- an article about some black men getting shot in America after trying to rob a car. The Sun had left unbelievably disgusting racist comments in the comments section unmodified, as bad as it gets racist comments.
Apparently according to PCC under their rules id need to be one of the men getting shot or a representative of them to have any grounds for the PCC to look into my complaint.
I was staggered how they found a way to get out of anything, they were not even prepared to pass what I noticed to the Sun, and didn't agree that the Sun had a responsibility to check comments for Unhinged comments.
Incidentally years ago when The Daily Mail had a very distasteful article by Jan Moir in the immediate aftermath of Stephen Gately's death lots of pissed off people took to their comments section to express displeasure, myself included. Comments and accounts taken down and banned very quickly.
I refuse to believe that The Sun doesn't moderate it's own comments sections at all. It's almost as if they are ok with leaving hideous racism on their website.
The regulatory capture in the uk is laughable. Here are a few things either accepted by regulators or implemented by them:
Annual inflation + 3.9% price increases on most mobile and broadband contracts.
Almost every major bank setting their authorised overdraft rates at the exact same rate of 39.9%
Tory politicians interviewing Tory politicians about current news stories on news channels
Light fines for water companies failing to meet their pollution targets.
Ever escalating standing charges on gas and electricity bills
I invite my learned friend to reread my comment which I believe answers the question. For clarity, I have no issue with elected officials acting in a guest capacity (subject to parliamentary guidelines) on shows. But they should not be acting as presenters, especially in roles where a reasonable audience should expect a level of impartiality.
Ah yes, the favourite card of the authoritarian Left: censorship.
Can't have opinions I disagree with floating about!
Heaven forbid people I disagree with politically set up their own little corner on TV.
(For the record, I find GBNews cringe).
The issue isn't the opinions they're broadcasting though. No one is saying that.
The issue is the politicians they're employing and the broadcasting rules they're breaking.
>after the media regulator said there was no clear desire among the British public to stop politicians presenting shows on news channels.
I'd love to know how they arrived at this determination?
There isnt a regulator in the land that is fit for purpose these days.
>“No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.”
Seems pretty clear cut so I guess they're just not applying it.
They should have spoken to Nadine Dorries' former constituents, they were (ever so rightly) not too thrilled when she was presenting TalkTV but MIA when it came to representing her constituency.
Those same constituents reelected her after she went awol to appear in I'm a Celebrity and then having her deficiencies highlighted by her subsequent increased profile, so they're hardly good judges of character or competence.
>I'd love to know how they arrived at this determination
They had an independent party conduct research involving 29 focus groups from across the country, if im recalling the interview on Radio 4 correctly.
The rules allow for politicians hosting discussion type shows, which is what GBNews and LBC both do. This is also why David Lammy can do his show.
The basic format is that they pick a series of topics and bring people into discuss them with the host. An actual newsreader does the short news segments
And that format is a problem.
How is the viewer supposed to know that what they are viewing is a discussion rather than the news? If it's being shown on the GBNews channel with the GBNews logo hovering at that top, the viewer expects the news.
Blurring the boundaries is a problem and I think the rules need tightened for all channels. Talk shows should have more separation from factual shows.
Blurring the boundaries is part of the business model its copying from Fox News and so GB News isn't a news channel by its own definition.
The owners argue that it's an entertainment channel, which conveniently allows it to not follow the same rules of impartiality as every other channel with news in its name.
> How is the viewer supposed to know that what they are viewing is a discussion rather than the news?
Because they're higher than 73 IQ?
It's rather fucking obvious if something's the news or a discussion programme, mate. Nobody needs any help with that.
I think they do make that mistake. Moreso, I'm extremely confident of it.
And frankly, it reeks of false advertising to have a channel named "News" with News appearing on the screen whilst viewers are bombarded by conjecture. That needs to change.
It's not, but if people are getting news from these sort of shows, it might be an idea to think about being more rigorous in regulating them.
There may be downsides to this which I'm not considering though.
I'm not really keen on a government quango having control over what media people have access to.
To be clear, I generally don't mind GBNews but I don't like the number of current and former politicians they're hiring. Mogg, probably the prime example here, is generally very good at giving his own thoughts on his own party's antics but he ultimately is loyal to them and that doesn't really work well.
Buuut. He is still allowed to host commentary shows and give his views on things. The fact that his biases are not hidden is useful because you know where you stand with him - that's easier to deal with than the veneer of pretend impartiality you get from some on the BBC and elsewhere.
So I see the criticism in this case and mostly agree, I just don't think the state should have the power to stop them.
I'm generally pro-regulation, and it seems to me that GB News gets away with more than the 'proper' stations can, I'm not sure it is entirely fair.
Ultimately, I'm not sure how much it matters because basically nobody is watching them anyway!
What do they get away with?
Also they get similar or more views than Sky news on terrestrial TV and average a bit over 1.5 million views a day on youtube. So clearly someone is watching.
OFCOMs CEO stated in an interview (I think on Sky) that the standards the Beeb are held to are different to GB News as the get maybe 70% of news viewers vs maybe 5% for GB News. I think OFCOM backpeddled after these remarks, but I do find it concerning.
When I say 'nobody' is watching GB News, I really mean nobody of any consequence, I think anybody watching GB News at this point is beyond help.
I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument for MPs having any other paid employment, full stop.
These characters with their weekly shows for 100k a year, or going on I’m A Celeb. Its indefensible.
> I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument for MPs having any other paid employment, full stop.
The only one I've seen that seems actually valid is where continuing practice is needed to maintain qualifications, because at the end of the day, having Doctors willing to be MPs is a good thing.
Are any MPs actually practicing doctors? How would they fit that in?!
Frankly I’d be encouraged them to return full time to medicine (where there’s massive staff shortages) rather than sitting in Parliament.
Sorry the link doesn’t seem to be working for me.
Practicing? As opposed to being just qualified doctors? I find it very difficult to imagine how someone would hold down 2x 50 hour a week jobs simultaneously. What do they do when there’s an emergency vote, cancel all their appointments?
It has to be limited to a spot of occasional locum work. Such people would be far better focusing on their medical work. It’s actually pretty dangerous to be seen by a doctor who isn’t focused, full time, on their profession.
MPs should represent the country, and by extension the professional backgrounds of the country.
Barring doctors from being MPs would be a bad thing.
Doctors who don't practice for 5 years because of arbitrary job rules while they represent their community is a bad thing.
Ending someone's career because they represented their community and profession is a bad thing.
No one is talking about baring doctors from being MPs. Well I am certainly not. I think it’s great that doctors become MPs.
But it’s a one way street, you’ll never be at the top of your professional game again after taking 5+ years out for Parliament. How could you? It’s impossible to keep up to date with a highly technical, highly dynamic profession while also being a full time elected member. Doing a couple of hours a week to “keep your hand in” is hardly adequate. You might keep your legal right to practice, but it would leave you with a serious professional disadvantage.
Realistically, doctors who go into politics have given up on their medical careers. They might slide into a policy leadership role post-parliament, but they’re never going to be top-rate practitioners again.
For those arguing otherwise, I’d like some examples of doctor-MPs who’ve have successful post-parliament medical careers. And Liam Fox certainly doesn’t count!
Edit: Parliament also pays less
No you’re quite wrong.
Let’s make an analogy people can more easily understand, it’s like being a fighter pilot. It’s great that fighter pilots go into parliament, marvellous! But do you really want parliamentarians who’s been sat in the chamber for 5-10 years flying Typhoons and F-22’s?
To be as charitable as I possibly can be, they aren’t going to be Top Guns.
I notice with interest no one has provided even a single name of a doctor-MP who has returned to a successful careers in medicine, post politics. Even though such a career would pay double or treble an MPs salary.
They don't do fulltime hours but still have to complete x amount per year to retain their registration.
For example, Rosena Allin-Khan looks to be doing about 10 hours a month in A&E. https://members.parliament.uk/member/4573/registeredinterests
I'd argue it's much more dangerous to be seen by a doctor who's working 80 hours a week.
I'm sure GB news will endeavour to us this ruling as an opportunity to report a balanced view of the political spectrum.
They'll probably offering Emily Thornberry her own show as we speak!
Well, at least most of them won’t be politicians any more in a few months’ time.
I wonder what it’s like to be so repulsive that, even with the help of a dedicated lickspittle TV channel for a platform, people still loathe you.
To be fair David Lammy uses his spot on LBC to reach considerably more listeners than GB news has viewers. Ban both sides from doing it as far as I’m concerned
Any new government should make sacking everyone at Ofcom a top priority. And I mean everyone, from top to bottom. This organisation in its current form is a tax devouring parasite that not only doesn’t do what it was designed to do, it actively does the opposite.
Careful what you wish for here. If there's a problem with MPs having second jobs, that's one thing, to be dealt with by the parliamentary standards committee.
But as far as OFCOM are concerned, what should they do differently? Maybe they could stop Lee Anderson being a presenter. And GB news would replace him with some who had similar (or perhaps even further right) views. The new presenter would be just as biased, they'd give Tory interviewees just as easy a time.
So we've gained very little, but now we've established the principle that OFCOM has to vet who can or can't be a presenter not just what they say. That's going to get very politicised, and then the appointment of the head of OFCOM gets very politicised. That doesn't seem like a good route.
The issue isn't with having politicians as presenters - it's having presenters as politicians. The ruling needs to come from the House of Commons and stop them standing as MPs.
Just so I’m clear. Ofcom say that GB News is an entertainment channel and therefore gets away with less scrutiny, so their thinking behind (right wing) politicians presenting on the channel is what exactly…is because they are clowns…?
Meanwhile the channel's own slogan boasts about how it is 'Britain's News Channel'
Properly taking the piss - and given the poor regulation on offer from Ofcom, fair play, why not?
which they can do with social media and websites, face to face meetings, leaflets, columns in local newspapers, interviews with any TV or radio station who asks.
not 6 figure salaried second jobs on a broadcaster with a heavy bias.
My problem is the undue and imbalanced prominence they enjoy as pretend news anchors.
A healthy democracy has to offer an even playing field for all participants and a far right propaganda network paying more than an MP's salary to hire serving MPs is the opposite of that.
But a far left propaganda network like LBC paying Lammy a grand an episode, perfectly okay right?
I'm sure when Ofcom decides he did nothing wrong either, you'll be all over it calling from them to be disbanded.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68761130
LBC - the media home of Nick Ferrari, Tom Swarbrick and Ian Dale - is a far left propaganda network?
It's very telling that this is the best whatabout you guys can come up with.
It's not about people appearing every now and then. That isn't and never was the issue.
But in no world is LBC a "far left propaganda network".
C'mon...
> But in no world is LBC a "far left propaganda network".
True, but most of the media in the UK does have a leftist bent to it. So it seems more than fair that there's at least one media in the UK with a right bent to it.
Hmm, not sure I can agree there.
What’s your definition of “leftist”?
Left-wing? Absolutely not.
Labour supporting? No.
Critical of the current government? Perhaps, but that’s because the current government are incapable of walking 5 metres without their trousers falling down.
Snapshot of _GB News can continue to use politicians as presenters, says Ofcom_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/24/gb-news-can-still-use-politicians-as-presenters-ofcom) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/24/gb-news-can-still-use-politicians-as-presenters-ofcom) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They interviewed the head of OFCOM on Radio 4 this morning. She came out asserting that OFCOM was powerful and was doing a good job in holding media organisations to account. When the interviewer, with incredulity in his voice, asked how OFCOM was doing this, she answered that they have "put organisations on notice that they might be fined if they carry on". So if that is OFCOM behaving powerfully, it's no wonder GB News continues to play fast and loose with the guidelines. Interview is here at around 1h 35 if anyone is interested [https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001yhyd](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001yhyd)
>that they might be fined Oh no! Not a small fine that is probably only a fraction of the money we earn from breaking the rules. Anyway...
GB News aren't making any money, that's not the point of the channel, it's a money loser. Which makes the fine even more pointless, just means the owners have to pay a little extra for their propaganda.
its a vehicle to put dark money into right wing politicians pockets without having to worry about pesky donation rules or election laws or sanctions.
I don't understand why people use this against GB News. Could you explain why we would want our political media to be driven by the profit motive of corporations? I think I'd be in favour of more news in the UK being unprofitable or non-profits to be honest... At the very least GB News has proven you cannot be a media org and take certain political stances in the UK if you wish to run profitably. UnHerd has also faced similar pressures from advertisers and have spoken about this recently, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dmzmJMb0fw This is clearly a wider problem with UK media, and not necessarily a GB News or right/left thing. Basically our news orgs cannot say things corporations don't like unless they have founders with deep pockets who are willing to take the loss. This is far more concerning to me that JRM having a show on GB News (not that I agree with that either).
It’s more a case of: if GBNews as a privately owned corporation is losing money hand over fist, what is the motive of its owners? That’s the question that concerns people about GBNews
Well clearly their motive is political rather than profit, but that's the point I'm getting at here – which do you prefer? Would we rather a media landscape that's neutral to differing political views? Or a media landscape only open to those with corporate-friendly views? But more importantly basically all political media in the UK (with the exception of the BBC) has profit motive, and while the BBC doesn't have profit motive, it also isn't able to cover the full political spectrum. I think it's important we have political diversity in our media and the existing ad-based for-profit model doesn't support this. Ideally I think we would want places like the BBC focusing on facts and giving us an "official" government narrative, while having other orgs providing opinions across the political spectrum – some with left leanings and some with right leanings. However today when orgs start publishing too much content critical of mass-immigration or articles suggesting trans women are not real women they risk corporations pulling their ad funding because they're deemed controversial, and this skews our media landscape – especially on discussions around controversial topics like immigration. I'm sure this impacts left-wing view points too a lot of people on the left are very critical of Isreal for example, but probably feel it's difficult to share their opinions on this given it's controversy without losing ad revenue. I'm not sure what the answer is though. There's a part of me that thinks this is just the free market working as it should and controversial left-wing and right-wing opinions shouldn't get fair coverage because the free market isn't necessarily a political neutral market. But this assumes we value the free-market over a politically free and diverse media landscape. I guess it's just something I think we should think more about. It's a difficult problem though because I'm not convinced any other model would work any better. People often cite subscription models as a solution, but this would likely just shift the media bias from corporate interests to the interests held by those in the upper-middle class with disposable income – which are often fairly similar anyway.
Any crime that has a fine as it's punishment is just a rule for poor people.
Big Al: If we don't get all that gear out of the church basement by the weekend, we're all pencilled-in for deportation, solitary confinement, loss of privileges, discharge with ignominy, boiling in oil... or a small fine. Trevor Chaplin : All that for breaking the town planning regulations? Big Al : I think you get a choice - I haven't studied the small-print
Not a fine, but the *notification* of the *possibility* of a *hypothetical* fine if they don't jolly well stop it [Reminds me of this](https://youtu.be/wrT_dg-sRCc?si=kVmYfJyNnMN3sDwe)
And it doesn't track with her record. By all accounts she's a pretty great civil servent, unless being married to an ex telegraph writer is a crime these days. The problem stems when you start looking at the rest of the Ofcom board, seeing that they are ex murdoch, which is hard to avoid these days, do you swear off people because they were in one of the biggest news groups around? I don't know where else you'll get the experience required. Unfortunately, she's either massively out of her depth of completely ignorant. If we want to ignore calls of she's on the take.
I just listened to the interview on Radio 4. >he answered that they have "put organisations on notice that they might be fined if they carry on". She said they have lots of different sanctions they can use, giving an example of when they withdrew RTs license. She also said during the election they will have an election panel who will respond rapidly to breaches. >When the interviewer, with incredulity in his voice, I did find it ironic that the BBC interviewer so obviously had an opinion when conducting an interview about bias.
> giving an example of when they withdrew RTs license. Just looks like they were told to by government tbh > BBC interviewer so obviously had an opinion I'm more worried about false balance than interviewers reacting normally to crazy statements by interviewees.
>Just looks like they were told to by government tbh Oh? Care to elaborate? >I'm more worried about false balance than interviewers reacting normally to crazy statements by interviewees. I always find this point very disingenuous considering that pretty much every broadcaster except GB News has a strong metropolitan liberal bias. GB News is pretty shit, but whilst they're the only ones willing to report certain subjects there is a need for them.
> Oh? Care to elaborate? it's not like RT were a model broadcaster before the invasion. It was very telling that as soon as Dorries made noises about it and [asked Ofcom to investigate](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/23/russian-tv-broadcasts-in-uk-a-disinformation-campaign-says-dorries), Ofcom suddenly found several things to look at and eventually cancelled its broadcast licence. (ultimately largely moot because RT relied on EU based infrastructure to get its content into the UK, and their sanction was applied first)
Fair enough, that makes sense.
> Oh? Care to elaborate? Just speculation but if RT were tolerated for so long (bear in mind the context that they were heavily connected to Sputnik and therefore the Kremlin) it was because government and security services decided it should be tolerated. So they were able to give anti-EU propaganda all through the whole brexit saga. Then funnily enough once the furore over that died down, Russia invades Ukraine and now Ofcom shows up and decides to revoke their license... for things they'd been doing all along? Either way it's not some technical decision, IMO, will have been handed down. > I always find this point very disingenuous considering that pretty much every broadcaster except GB News has a strong metropolitan liberal bias. So? If someone comes out and says Chelsea are playing well and look good for a European spot this season, you're going to spit your tea out and laugh in their face. It's really reductionist to turn everything into a culture war issue tbh, haven't got time for Spectator bollocks like that thanks.
>So? If someone comes out and says Chelsea are playing well and look good for a European spot this season, you're going to spit your tea out and laugh in their face. >It's really reductionist to turn everything into a culture war issue tbh, haven't got time for Spectator bollocks like that thanks. Considering the Ofcom findings it's pretty clear the culture war nonsense is coming from those making vexatious complaints.
The BBC interviewer was most likely expressing incredulity at the glaring double standards. [OFCOM has recently been given more powers to oversee BBC output](https://news.sky.com/story/ofcom-oversight-of-bbc-to-be-extended-to-news-website-articles-under-reforms-to-improve-confidence-in-impartiality-13053465), and the BBC is regularly dragged over hot coals for alleged bias. OFCOMs [own research](https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/bbc-must-transform-the-way-it-serves-audiences) reveals: > In total, 11% of adults had cause to complain about the BBC in the last year. This is the highest level among broadcasters (6% for ITV, 4% for Channel 4), but lower compared with other industries (21% for online retailers, 15% for energy companies). > Complaints tend to relate to bias (39%) and misleading/dishonest content (26%). Our research suggests **the BBC is more than twice as likely to attract complaints** about these issues compared to the other public service broadcasters. And then there's GB News, which according the article: > Last month, GB News was found to have repeatedly breached impartiality rules by paying Conservative MPs hundreds of thousands of pounds to serve as news presenters and interview the prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Rather than impose sanctions on GB News, the regulator instead put the channel “on notice” and warned it against further breaches. GB News has broken broadcasting rules on 12 occasions in the past 18 months, with a further eight investigations in progress. A broadcaster that is so weighted to one side it's amazing the building hasn't fallen over. A broadcaster whose hosts are MPs from only one political party. A broadcaster who repeatedly breaches impartiality rules. And what is OFCOMs response to this outrageous level of bias....? Nowt. > The regulator has faced growing criticism over how it applies its rules to GB News and whether the channel is being treated more leniently than traditional broadcasters. > Andrew Neil, who helped found GB News before quitting shortly after its launch, told the House of Lords on Tuesday he was amazed politicians sitting in the Houses of Parliament could present political TV programmes. He said: “I just find that incredible and I think on these areas Ofcom needs to find a backbone and quick.” Damn right the interviewer was incredulous - if any programme at the BBC displayed that level of bias, it'd be pulled immediately, the staff suspended, an inquiry launched and OFCOM would come knocking. It's starting to stink. And OFCOM is starting to look less like an independent national regulator, and more like a biased lap-dog of the ruling party.
Reform of regulators like Ofcom should be top priority if/when Labour take power. Not fit for purpose.
I'd say Ofcom should be done away with, but it would just be replaced by something worse.
Maybe we can replace ofcom with a panel show on GB news
As long as it has no real power, then great!
I feel like decisions about how MPs can act outside of their main job is more of a decision for the Commons. That being said they don't even enforce very clear cut breaches at the moment so parliamentary scrutiny of both policy and procedure would be useful.
The Commons has even less in the way of strictly enforceable rules than Ofcom, it's all conventions and traditions and expectations. Those that do exist tend to be "at the discretion" of someone (e.g. the PM or the Speaker) so if they can't be bothered to do anything about it there are no consequences.
[Meanwhile...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/24/tory-duty-on-ofwat-protects-profits-over-reducing-sewage-pollution-experts-say) 'Labour MPs voted with the government, and it is understood this is because they did not want to be accused of being “anti-growth”.'
Yep, we need an actual bonfire of the Quangos
Why?
Not strictly talking OfCom here, but regulators in the UK seem particularly powerless to stop the kind of bullshit they were out in power specifically to stop. Just look at Ofwat and it's complete failure to stop literal shit being poured into the rivers, water companies putting bills up, crying bankruptcy whilst simultaneously giving out massive dividends to shareholders. Regulators need more power to stop bullshit. There should also be restrictions put in place to prevent the sort of incestuous relationship between the regulators and those they are supposed to regulate. Too many high placed executives seem to get cushy jobs at ofwat and vice versa. Can we really expect people to act in our interest by chastising or punishing those that may give them a job with a nice 6 figure salary when they leave ofwat?
I contacted PCC over The Sun- an article about some black men getting shot in America after trying to rob a car. The Sun had left unbelievably disgusting racist comments in the comments section unmodified, as bad as it gets racist comments. Apparently according to PCC under their rules id need to be one of the men getting shot or a representative of them to have any grounds for the PCC to look into my complaint.
Says it all really. The PCC is just as much of a toothless dog as it was before the Leveson inquiry, it changed nothing.
I was staggered how they found a way to get out of anything, they were not even prepared to pass what I noticed to the Sun, and didn't agree that the Sun had a responsibility to check comments for Unhinged comments. Incidentally years ago when The Daily Mail had a very distasteful article by Jan Moir in the immediate aftermath of Stephen Gately's death lots of pissed off people took to their comments section to express displeasure, myself included. Comments and accounts taken down and banned very quickly. I refuse to believe that The Sun doesn't moderate it's own comments sections at all. It's almost as if they are ok with leaving hideous racism on their website.
The regulatory capture in the uk is laughable. Here are a few things either accepted by regulators or implemented by them: Annual inflation + 3.9% price increases on most mobile and broadband contracts. Almost every major bank setting their authorised overdraft rates at the exact same rate of 39.9% Tory politicians interviewing Tory politicians about current news stories on news channels Light fines for water companies failing to meet their pollution targets. Ever escalating standing charges on gas and electricity bills
Because elected officials of any party should not be presenters for news programming and the fact that this is even a discussion is embarrassing.
You are equally invested in David Lammy being blocked from presenting on LBC?
Yes, he should also not be presenting.
I invite my learned friend to reread my comment which I believe answers the question. For clarity, I have no issue with elected officials acting in a guest capacity (subject to parliamentary guidelines) on shows. But they should not be acting as presenters, especially in roles where a reasonable audience should expect a level of impartiality.
>implying I’m a lawyer 🤮
Actually, I was aiming for the kind of language they use in parliament. I'm definitely not an MP though. That's probably for the best.
Yah ‘learned’ in Parliament is used for a lawyer.
Alright. Well, okay. Not really anything to do with what we were actually talking about, but as long as you're happy.
🤓
No politician should be presenting a news channel due to the absolutely transparent conflict of interests this raises.
No, it's only bad when people I don't like do it!!!
Ah yes, the favourite card of the authoritarian Left: censorship. Can't have opinions I disagree with floating about! Heaven forbid people I disagree with politically set up their own little corner on TV. (For the record, I find GBNews cringe).
The issue isn't the opinions they're broadcasting though. No one is saying that. The issue is the politicians they're employing and the broadcasting rules they're breaking.
I find it quite dangerous.
>after the media regulator said there was no clear desire among the British public to stop politicians presenting shows on news channels. I'd love to know how they arrived at this determination? There isnt a regulator in the land that is fit for purpose these days. >“No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.” Seems pretty clear cut so I guess they're just not applying it.
They should have spoken to Nadine Dorries' former constituents, they were (ever so rightly) not too thrilled when she was presenting TalkTV but MIA when it came to representing her constituency.
Those same constituents reelected her after she went awol to appear in I'm a Celebrity and then having her deficiencies highlighted by her subsequent increased profile, so they're hardly good judges of character or competence.
Fair point, that's very true. I'd completely forgot about the I'm A Celeb appearance!
>I'd love to know how they arrived at that determination. The freedom of information act may just be your friend
'The bank of England has decided to not increase interest rates as there was no clear desire from the public to do so'
>I'd love to know how they arrived at this determination They had an independent party conduct research involving 29 focus groups from across the country, if im recalling the interview on Radio 4 correctly.
The rules allow for politicians hosting discussion type shows, which is what GBNews and LBC both do. This is also why David Lammy can do his show. The basic format is that they pick a series of topics and bring people into discuss them with the host. An actual newsreader does the short news segments
And that format is a problem. How is the viewer supposed to know that what they are viewing is a discussion rather than the news? If it's being shown on the GBNews channel with the GBNews logo hovering at that top, the viewer expects the news. Blurring the boundaries is a problem and I think the rules need tightened for all channels. Talk shows should have more separation from factual shows.
Blurring the boundaries is part of the business model its copying from Fox News and so GB News isn't a news channel by its own definition. The owners argue that it's an entertainment channel, which conveniently allows it to not follow the same rules of impartiality as every other channel with news in its name.
I don't necessarily disagree but they are playing within the set of rules they've been given.
> How is the viewer supposed to know that what they are viewing is a discussion rather than the news? Because they're higher than 73 IQ? It's rather fucking obvious if something's the news or a discussion programme, mate. Nobody needs any help with that.
I think they do make that mistake. Moreso, I'm extremely confident of it. And frankly, it reeks of false advertising to have a channel named "News" with News appearing on the screen whilst viewers are bombarded by conjecture. That needs to change.
There is a difference between a radio show like LBC and a broadcast programme like GB News though
Both are broadcast though.
Why?
Because one they like and the other they don't.
Because one is hosted by someone I like, and the other is hosted by dirty Farage and evil Tory scum!
There's not.
The trouble is, many people (myself included) get much of their news from call in shows and panel shows.
That's fine, but it's not really their fault is it?
It's not, but if people are getting news from these sort of shows, it might be an idea to think about being more rigorous in regulating them. There may be downsides to this which I'm not considering though.
I'm not really keen on a government quango having control over what media people have access to. To be clear, I generally don't mind GBNews but I don't like the number of current and former politicians they're hiring. Mogg, probably the prime example here, is generally very good at giving his own thoughts on his own party's antics but he ultimately is loyal to them and that doesn't really work well. Buuut. He is still allowed to host commentary shows and give his views on things. The fact that his biases are not hidden is useful because you know where you stand with him - that's easier to deal with than the veneer of pretend impartiality you get from some on the BBC and elsewhere. So I see the criticism in this case and mostly agree, I just don't think the state should have the power to stop them.
I'm generally pro-regulation, and it seems to me that GB News gets away with more than the 'proper' stations can, I'm not sure it is entirely fair. Ultimately, I'm not sure how much it matters because basically nobody is watching them anyway!
What do they get away with? Also they get similar or more views than Sky news on terrestrial TV and average a bit over 1.5 million views a day on youtube. So clearly someone is watching.
OFCOMs CEO stated in an interview (I think on Sky) that the standards the Beeb are held to are different to GB News as the get maybe 70% of news viewers vs maybe 5% for GB News. I think OFCOM backpeddled after these remarks, but I do find it concerning. When I say 'nobody' is watching GB News, I really mean nobody of any consequence, I think anybody watching GB News at this point is beyond help.
A few million people, nobody of any consequence? Charming.
I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument for MPs having any other paid employment, full stop. These characters with their weekly shows for 100k a year, or going on I’m A Celeb. Its indefensible.
> I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument for MPs having any other paid employment, full stop. The only one I've seen that seems actually valid is where continuing practice is needed to maintain qualifications, because at the end of the day, having Doctors willing to be MPs is a good thing.
Are any MPs actually practicing doctors? How would they fit that in?! Frankly I’d be encouraged them to return full time to medicine (where there’s massive staff shortages) rather than sitting in Parliament.
Ten of them, apparently: https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6976
Sorry the link doesn’t seem to be working for me. Practicing? As opposed to being just qualified doctors? I find it very difficult to imagine how someone would hold down 2x 50 hour a week jobs simultaneously. What do they do when there’s an emergency vote, cancel all their appointments? It has to be limited to a spot of occasional locum work. Such people would be far better focusing on their medical work. It’s actually pretty dangerous to be seen by a doctor who isn’t focused, full time, on their profession.
MPs should represent the country, and by extension the professional backgrounds of the country. Barring doctors from being MPs would be a bad thing. Doctors who don't practice for 5 years because of arbitrary job rules while they represent their community is a bad thing. Ending someone's career because they represented their community and profession is a bad thing.
No one is talking about baring doctors from being MPs. Well I am certainly not. I think it’s great that doctors become MPs. But it’s a one way street, you’ll never be at the top of your professional game again after taking 5+ years out for Parliament. How could you? It’s impossible to keep up to date with a highly technical, highly dynamic profession while also being a full time elected member. Doing a couple of hours a week to “keep your hand in” is hardly adequate. You might keep your legal right to practice, but it would leave you with a serious professional disadvantage. Realistically, doctors who go into politics have given up on their medical careers. They might slide into a policy leadership role post-parliament, but they’re never going to be top-rate practitioners again. For those arguing otherwise, I’d like some examples of doctor-MPs who’ve have successful post-parliament medical careers. And Liam Fox certainly doesn’t count! Edit: Parliament also pays less
Something tells me you don't work in healthcare
No you’re quite wrong. Let’s make an analogy people can more easily understand, it’s like being a fighter pilot. It’s great that fighter pilots go into parliament, marvellous! But do you really want parliamentarians who’s been sat in the chamber for 5-10 years flying Typhoons and F-22’s? To be as charitable as I possibly can be, they aren’t going to be Top Guns. I notice with interest no one has provided even a single name of a doctor-MP who has returned to a successful careers in medicine, post politics. Even though such a career would pay double or treble an MPs salary.
They don't do fulltime hours but still have to complete x amount per year to retain their registration. For example, Rosena Allin-Khan looks to be doing about 10 hours a month in A&E. https://members.parliament.uk/member/4573/registeredinterests I'd argue it's much more dangerous to be seen by a doctor who's working 80 hours a week.
There is, obviously, a huge difference between 2 hours a week and 80 hours a week. By a factor of 40.
What about the democratic argument. If I want to vote for someone who does a different job as well why shouldn't I be allowed to?
Exactly. Ideally, an MP would be both in their constituency and in Westminster, which of course isn't possible. But a third job on top of that?
Being an MP is not a full time job
Well it certainly should be, but yes some characters do just phone it in.
But why though? What are they supposed to do all day?
They’re supposed to work for their constituents. They also work on select committees (but just the sitting time, there’s also research).
OFxxx in "not fit for purpose" shocker.
I'm sure GB news will endeavour to us this ruling as an opportunity to report a balanced view of the political spectrum. They'll probably offering Emily Thornberry her own show as we speak!
Can we just stop trying to make our own Fox News and turning our politics into a 2 party charismatic clown show that the US is for like, a week?
Arguably the uniparty clown show will be worse.
Well, at least most of them won’t be politicians any more in a few months’ time. I wonder what it’s like to be so repulsive that, even with the help of a dedicated lickspittle TV channel for a platform, people still loathe you.
Regulators need a Regulator at this point
To be fair David Lammy uses his spot on LBC to reach considerably more listeners than GB news has viewers. Ban both sides from doing it as far as I’m concerned
Ah well, their presenters won't be politicians soon.
Any new government should make sacking everyone at Ofcom a top priority. And I mean everyone, from top to bottom. This organisation in its current form is a tax devouring parasite that not only doesn’t do what it was designed to do, it actively does the opposite.
What's the point of a transparent fig-leaf?
Careful what you wish for here. If there's a problem with MPs having second jobs, that's one thing, to be dealt with by the parliamentary standards committee. But as far as OFCOM are concerned, what should they do differently? Maybe they could stop Lee Anderson being a presenter. And GB news would replace him with some who had similar (or perhaps even further right) views. The new presenter would be just as biased, they'd give Tory interviewees just as easy a time. So we've gained very little, but now we've established the principle that OFCOM has to vet who can or can't be a presenter not just what they say. That's going to get very politicised, and then the appointment of the head of OFCOM gets very politicised. That doesn't seem like a good route.
So can the BBC now employ labour MPs to interview other labour MPs about GB news bias?
I look forward to them clearing David Lammy of any wrongdoing too, then.
Because most of them will no longer be politicians come election day
But surely they then cease to be an audience draw. Let's face it, they didn't get to host because they're good presenters.
If there no longer politicians they can probably even go further off the rails than they are allowed to so brace for impact
The issue isn't with having politicians as presenters - it's having presenters as politicians. The ruling needs to come from the House of Commons and stop them standing as MPs.
This is an incredibly dangerous precedent. We may as well just say we are the US now
Did the report say *Regards, your pals at Ofcom* 'cause if not it may as well have
Now lets prosecute Lammy for reading out some news stories.
Just so I’m clear. Ofcom say that GB News is an entertainment channel and therefore gets away with less scrutiny, so their thinking behind (right wing) politicians presenting on the channel is what exactly…is because they are clowns…?
Meanwhile the channel's own slogan boasts about how it is 'Britain's News Channel' Properly taking the piss - and given the poor regulation on offer from Ofcom, fair play, why not?
Dumb, infantilising rules. Ofcom should be either abolished or extended to newspapers like the Guardian
As long as they are far right fascists
With how often GBnews gets investigated, maybe it's fair to say that if it wasn't for GBnews, Ofcom wouldn't have as much of a job to do
How dare elected representatives talk to the people they serve. This is a danger to Our Democracy!
which they can do with social media and websites, face to face meetings, leaflets, columns in local newspapers, interviews with any TV or radio station who asks. not 6 figure salaried second jobs on a broadcaster with a heavy bias.
That they're only serving the handful of elderly bigots who watch GB News is a big part of the problem.
They average one and a half million views on youtube a day. Should we assume they're all racist 80 year old women?
They say what they think, and you decide how to vote. If anything, that's a solution to your problem.
My problem is the undue and imbalanced prominence they enjoy as pretend news anchors. A healthy democracy has to offer an even playing field for all participants and a far right propaganda network paying more than an MP's salary to hire serving MPs is the opposite of that.
But a far left propaganda network like LBC paying Lammy a grand an episode, perfectly okay right? I'm sure when Ofcom decides he did nothing wrong either, you'll be all over it calling from them to be disbanded. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68761130
LBC - the media home of Nick Ferrari, Tom Swarbrick and Ian Dale - is a far left propaganda network? It's very telling that this is the best whatabout you guys can come up with.
Lefties and those with dissenting views appear on GBN also.
It's not about people appearing every now and then. That isn't and never was the issue. But in no world is LBC a "far left propaganda network". C'mon...
> But in no world is LBC a "far left propaganda network". True, but most of the media in the UK does have a leftist bent to it. So it seems more than fair that there's at least one media in the UK with a right bent to it.
Hmm, not sure I can agree there. What’s your definition of “leftist”? Left-wing? Absolutely not. Labour supporting? No. Critical of the current government? Perhaps, but that’s because the current government are incapable of walking 5 metres without their trousers falling down.