ANDREW Neil was first to speak on the new channel. “We are not a rolling news channel, nor will we be providing conventional news bulletins,” he intoned. So what was GB News to be?
“News programmes … that are appointments to view” he explained. And “with passionate presenters”. The entire channel would be “proud to be British. The clue’s in the name.”
Alas things went wrong very quickly. Microphones didn’t work. Presenters were left to glow red in the dark. Even the Daily Star said the channel was “unwatchable”. And what of the passionate presenters and appointment-to-view guests? It soon became clear that many were the same angry faces we all recognised as pro-Brexit, anti-immigrant rent-a-gobs from other channels.
READ MORE: GB News bosses wanted channel to be 'Ukip tribute band', Andrew Neil says
But there was a difference. On GB News, there was no presenter with the job (whether successful or not) of challenging false claims and imposing an element of balance. On GB News, extreme views and puce-faced monologues were to go uninterrupted.
I didn’t see how the channel could last. The technical and production disasters seemed to get worse not better. And an embarrassed Andrew Neil walked out, having had to seek sanctuary in his EU holiday home for a few months to recover from several on-air ordeals. “Carrying on would have killed me” he revealed.
But it was the content and presenters rather than any technical ineptitude which I thought would kill off the channel. We have strict rules around broadcasting in the UK – rules policed by Ofcom, the independent regulator. I assumed Ofcom would step in and force the channel to balance its radical right-wing schtick with some journalism, after which it would teeter and fall, the game over for its Fox News-style toxicity.
And yet, here we are two years on, and the poison keeps spewing. And GB News has now been joined by a mini-me channel – Talk TV.
On March 11, GB News had two Tory MPs – Esther McVey and her husband Phil Davies – interviewing the Tory Chancellor about the Tory Budget, all agreeing how good it was. The interview was trailed by HM Treasury on its social media pages.
This was a flagrant breach of Ofcom’s rules which are clear and say: “No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in news programmes, unless justified editorially.”
And this was hardly the first offence. Jacob Rees-Mogg is seldom off the air, delivering long dull monologues in his dusty pre-war timbre. Lee Anderson, the bovver boy depute chairman of the Conservative Party and a refugee from the Labour Party right, has announced that he will be head-butting the GB News studio cameras soon.
I sit on the Commons Culture Select Committee at Westminster. That’s where MPs question and scrutinise important media witnesses. By happy chance, just after the Chancellor’s Tory love-in on GB News with MPs Esther and Phil, Ofcom’s high heid yin Melanie Dawes was in for one of her periodic scrutiny sessions to discuss “Disinformation in the Media”.
Is it right to see two Conservative MPs on GB News interviewing Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, which was then advertised by the HM Treasury Ofcom?
— Central Bylines (@CentralBylines) March 25, 2023
None of this is apparently an issue with Ofcom chair Dame Melanie Dawes, because GB News is not a news programmepic.twitter.com/hFzSe74H7L
Perfect! I assumed Melanie D might want to seize the opportunity to show MPs that as the regulator she’d tolerate no more Fox News nonsense, and would soon be stamping down on Tory MPs interviewing a Tory Chancellor about a Tory Budget on a news show on a news channel. But instead, I found myself in the rather odd position of having to explain the Ofcom rules to the Ofcom boss.
Dame Melanie conceded that there are “strict rules about serving politicians not being able to present news programmes”. So she’d call a halt to Esther and Phil and gang? Well… “they are able to present shows, to invite on whoever they like, though of course due impartiality is going to be needed.” Due impartiality like the pairing of two Tory MPs with the Tory Chancellor? Oh and did I mention the show also included interview commentary by Patrick O’Flynn, a one-time elected member for UKIP?
READ MORE: Plans to use Scotland's oil and gas to fund English council tax freeze slammed
Melanie Dawes left our Committee promising to look into the interview and get back to us. But I can’t say I’m hopeful. My Ofcom spies – it’s an unhappy place of work and leaks like a sieve – tell me Ofcom bosses have already decided to give the Esther & Phil Show a clean bill of health.
If so, that’s deeply worrying for all of us who want to see flourishing news and current affairs journalism free from political bias. The media landscape in the UK is already owned by a small enough clique of right-wing moguls. It’s never been more important for the regulator to stand up for media freedom. But increasingly it looks as if Ofcom isn’t up to the task.
And a footnote. Dame Melanie’s get out clause to explain Ofcom inaction was, I understand, to have been that the Esther and Phil Show is “current affairs” not “news”. But last week the sleuths at Private Eye followed up on my grilling of the Ofcom boss. Members of Parliament must declare significant sources of non-parliamentary income on the Members’ House of Commons “register of interests”. So what did Esther and Phil say they’ve been doing at GB News? Well helpfully they revealed that they earn a healthy wage from GB News for – wait for it – “presenting … a news programme.”
As Andrew Neil might say, the clue is in the name. Ofcom – over to you.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel