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 violations for the news channel to 12 in the last 18 months, with eight investigations underway.
Despite repeated infringements, Ofcom has not sanctioned the channel or threatened to revoke its broadcast licence.
GB News immediately rebuked Ofcom’s judgment. They argued that the regulator was limiting “alternative voices” and represented a “chilling development” in the freedom of UK broadcasting.
Ofcom ruled that shows presented by Conservative MPs Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey and Phillip Davies broke its code about politicians presenting “news” programming. While politicians can anchor current affairs programming, 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 columns in newspapers, angrily tweet their ideological opinions or blog polemically about their perspectives.
But until very recently, regulators would not have tolerated politicians routinely presenting political programmes on radio and television. This now appears to be changing, without any formal changes in legislation or public debate.
Changing regulations
Over the last decade, Ofcom has taken a more flexible approach when interpreting “due impartiality”. Broadcasters have been given the freedom to deliver more partisan perspectives, with presenters and guests voicing their opinions more vociferously.
They are still required to air “alternative viewpoints”, with presenters posing critical questions, challenging or rebutting perspectives. But the prominence and robustness of these counterbalancing views are 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 GB News and News UK, soon followed this approach, without the media regulator intervening.
But, over time, GB News has allowed politicians to not just host current affairs shows, but either present, report or break news programming. This pushed the boundaries of the UK’s impartiality code, prompting Ofcom’s latest judgment that found the channel had breached its code in five programmes involving politicians.
Ofcom has stressed the importance of granting broadcasters freedom of expression and responding to new audience expectations. But how far this represents public opinion is open to question, since Ofcom has not consulted audiences on their expectations.
In July 2023, Ofcom’s chief executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, revealed that the regulator was conducting research to better understand audience attitudes about current affairs programmes presented by politicians. But the remit for any study, the methodology, or findings have not surfaced yet.
Academic research, including my own at Cardiff University, has long found that the public values and trusts impartial journalism.
Rather than politicians presenting shows, audiences want them held to account more effectively, with journalists robustly challenging misleading or false claims. In other words, the public’s agenda appears at odds with Ofcom’s current, light-touch approach to impartiality.
Ofcom’s approach has effectively created what some view as a double standard. Citing “audience expectations”, Ofcom now appears to hold public service broadcasters, such as the BBC, with far greater scrutiny than new partisan channels. The media regulator’s oversight of BBC impartiality has now also been extended to its online news services. But no other news websites produced by broadcasters are being regulated.
Why impartiality still matters
Senior figures in the industry have claimed that the current impartiality rules aren’t suitable for the digital world. After all, the public has instant access to a wide range of opinionated online and social media sites. 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 US 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 on broadcast impartiality is eroded further on the grounds of freedom of expression and new audience expectations, we need to debate the merits of these arguments. But this should be driven by hard evidence about how the public want the media regulated.