GB News breached impartiality rules during a programme presented by former Brexit Party MEP Martin Daubney, who was standing in for Laurence Fox, the broadcasting watchdog has found.
During the broadcast on June 16, Daubney gave his views on immigration and asylum policy in the context of the controversy over small boats crossing the English Channel, and also interviewed Richard Tice (below), the leader of the Reform Party which was formerly known as the Brexit Party.
On Monday, UK media regulator Ofcom said the programme did not meet the “heightened impartiality requirements” which apply to programmes discussing “matters of major political controversy and current public policy”.
It said Tice presented his views on the programme “with insufficient challenge” and the “limited alternative views presented in the programme were dismissed”.
“The programme therefore did not include and give due weight to an appropriately wide range of significant views, as required by the Code,” Ofcom said.
“GB News accepted that the content was not compliant with the heightened special impartiality requirements in the Code.”
READ MORE: Nigel Farage fumes as GB News removed from Welsh Parliament TVs
It added: “We expect GB News to take careful account of this decision in its compliance of future programming.”
Daubney, who was also deputy leader of the Reclaim Party, was standing in for presenter Fox, who has since been dismissed following comments he made on air about a female journalist.
The actor-turned-politician made a series of personal remarks about political correspondent Ava Evans, including asking “Who would want to shag that?”, on the Dan Wootton Tonight programme on September 26.
Fox was sacked by GB News, while an internal investigation into Wootton continues.
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