Achi news desk-
The UK’s media regulator has found GB News guilty of breaching the UK’s “due impartiality” code in five separate programmes. This brings the total number of offenses for the news channel to 12 in the last 18 months, with eight investigations underway.
Despite repeated offences, Ofcom has not sanctioned the channel or threatened to revoke its broadcasting licence.
News GB immediately rebuked Ofcom’s ruling. They argued that the regulator restricted “alternative voices” and represented a “chilling development” in UK broadcasting freedom.
Ofcom ruled that shows presented by Conservative MPs Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey and Phillip Davies broke their code about politicians presenting “news” programmes. Although politicians can anchor current affairs programmes, once they step into the role of newsreader, news interviewer or reporter Ofcom considers this a breach of impartiality.
Needless to say, Ofcom’s rules do not mean that we never hear directly from politicians about their views. MPs and government ministers have long been free to write partisan newspaper columns, angrily tweet their ideological views or blog polemically about their views.
But until very recently, regulators would not have tolerated politicians presenting political programs on radio and television as a matter of course. This appears to be changing now, with no formal changes in legislation or public debate.
Change regulations
Over the past decade, Ofcom has adopted a more flexible approach in interpreting “due impartiality”. Broadcasters have been given the freedom to present more partisan views, with presenters and guests voicing their views more vocally.
They are still required to air “alternative views”, with presenters asking critical questions, challenging or refuting views. But the salience and strength of these countervailing views is often limited.
This was first evident on radio, with stations such as talkRadio and LBC featuring more partisan presenters, including senior politicians. Television channels, such as News GB and News UK, soon followed this approach, without the media regulator interfering.
But, over time, GB News has allowed politicians not only to host current affairs programmes, but to either present, report or break news programmes. This pushed the boundaries of the UK impartiality code, prompting Ofcom’s latest ruling which found the channel had breached its code in five programs involving politicians.
Ofcom has emphasized the importance of giving broadcasters freedom of expression and responding to the new expectations of audiences. But it is open to question how far this represents public opinion, as Ofcom has not consulted audiences about their expectations.
In July 2023, Ofcom’s chief executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, revealed that the regulator was carrying out research to better understand audiences’ attitudes towards current affairs programs presented by politicians. But no study’s remit, methodology or findings have yet emerged.
Academic research, including my own at Cardiff University, has long found that the public values ​​and trusts impartial journalism.
Rather than politicians putting on shows, audiences want them to be held to account more effectively, with journalists firmly challenging misleading or false claims. In other words, the public agenda appears to be at odds with Ofcom’s current light-hearted approach to impartiality.
Ofcom’s approach has effectively created what some see as a double standard. Citing “audience expectations”, Ofcom now appears to hold public service broadcasters, such as the BBC, to much greater scrutiny than new partisan channels. The media regulator’s oversight of the BBC’s impartiality has now also been extended to its online news services. But no other news sites produced by broadcasters are regulated.
Why impartiality still matters
Senior figures in the industry have claimed that the current impartiality rules are not suitable for the digital world. After all, the public has instant access to a wide range of opinionated online sites and social media. There are hundreds of channels and plenty of other places where people can get their news and current affairs.
Despite this, most people in the UK still rely on television news to understand what is happening in the world. This power and influence has led to successive UK governments ruling that broadcasters should remain impartial on politics and public affairs.
The example of the United States shows us what happens when these regulations do not exist. In the 1980s, US rules on impartial broadcasting were repealed, in part because they were seen as undermining freedom of expression at a time of media expansion and choice. Since then, partisan news channels have had an increasingly divisive influence on its political and media environment.
If the UK’s code of broadcasting impartiality is further eroded on the basis of freedom of expression and the expectations of new audiences, we need to debate the merits of these arguments. But this should be driven by solid evidence about how the public want the media to be regulated.
