As the former Ofcom chair says extraordinary things about the rightwing channel and its critics, a factcheck would not go amiss
Stewart Purvis is a former editor in chief of ITN; Chris Banatvala is a former Ofcom director of standards
During a review of his four years at Ofcom, the outgoing chair, Michael Grade, surprised his BBC Radio 4 interviewer. He had been asked by Katie Razzall whether Ofcom rules would allow a politician to present the Today programme apart from the news bulletins. She clearly did not expect him to answer: “Absolutely, absolutely, why not?” “Really?” replied a startled Media Show presenter. “Well, Nick Robinson might be out of a job. He might not be happy to hear that.” The Today presenter was listening and immediately posted: “Can anyone remind me when parliament, the public, licence fee payers or anyone else was asked their opinion on this?” None of the 204 people who commented on his post could offer any such reminder.
The argument about what the law does and doesn’t say about politicians presenting programmes has been a central thread of Lord Grade’s tenure, as Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, presents his 7pm weekday programme on GB News, covering the political news of the day. Even before Grade’s series of “free of the shackles” interviews became increasingly political with his views on the “white majority”, Ofcom felt compelled to distance itself. “Any personal views a former chairman has expressed do not represent Ofcom policy,” it said. The media regulator continues to stand by its handling of GB News, but has Grade accidentally exposed a central flaw during his tenure? And what should we make of his off-the-cuff comments since leaving.
Let us do what Ofcom says it does best: assess the evidence.
Claim: A politician could present Today
Grade says because Ofcom allows the Reform UK leader to present his programme, Farage, on GB News (promoted as airing four nights a week), there is no reason why a politician could not present BBC’s Today programme. No doubt this is because the formats are, at least superficially, similar. Both have news bulletins at the top followed by discussion of the day’s events, interviews and analysis. The problem is that Ofcom doesn’t apply its rules to these programmes in the same way. It regulates Today (as well as PM, The World at One and Newsnight) as news. Don’t take our word for it: Ofcom says so itself. Its published findings state that these programmes “constitute news”. Under the broadcasting code, politicians are prohibited from presenting news.
By contrast, Ofcom classifies Farage and other long-form GB News programmes as “current affairs”. The distinction is crucial. Politicians are permitted to present current affairs programmes, even though they are barred from presenting news. So why are GB News programmes defined as current affairs when other equivalent programmes are classified as news – particularly when our analysis found that almost 93% of their content concerns the day’s news? Grade is simply wrong to say that a politician could present Today. Under Ofcom’s own rules, Today is a news programme and politicians are prohibited from presenting news. The real question is why Ofcom classifies programmes that are overwhelmingly devoted to the day’s news differently in the first place.
Claim: All it takes for impartiality is ‘a sentence in a script’
In his interview with Politics Home, Lord Grade claimed: “It’s not difficult to comply [with due impartiality] – sometimes it’s only a sentence in a script.” This is difficult to reconcile with the law, the broadcasting code and Ofcom’s own guidance. When a broadcaster covers a controversial matter, due impartiality is not achieved simply by inserting a balancing sentence. The code requires “due weight” to be given to alternative viewpoints. It also states that “an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes”. These are not incidental requirements. They sit at the heart of how due impartiality is supposed to operate. Can due impartiality really be achieved with a single sentence? The code itself suggests otherwise.
Claim: Ofcom should not be dictating who presents programmes
In March, interviewed for the Daily Telegraph, Grade, then chair of Ofcom, said, “I would die in a ditch rather than have Ofcom telling broadcasters who they can and can’t employ as presenters.” That might well be an admirable position to take as a freedom of expression advocate. But it overlooks one small detail. Ofcom already does. The broadcasting code prohibits politicians from presenting news. In any event, freedom of expression in UK broadcasting has never been absolute. The requirement for due impartiality is itself a restriction on editorial freedom. So too are the prohibitions on political advertising, requirements for news to be reported with due accuracy, and rules preventing broadcasters from materially misleading audiences or causing harm.
Claim: We regulate individual programmes, we don’t regulate channels
When challenged about its handling of channels such as GB News, Ofcom frequently relies on the assertion that it regulates individual programmes, not channels. Up to a point. Broadcasters are often required to preserve due impartiality over time rather than within a single programme. Indeed, that is frequently how rolling news services achieve compliance. The broadcasting code allows due impartiality to be secured across a series of programmes, in “editorially linked” programmes, or in “timely” programmes. It also requires significant views to be appropriately represented over relevant timeframes. The legislation, and therefore the code, expressly allow Ofcom to look beyond a single programme when assessing due impartiality. It is not restricted to considering programmes in isolation.
Claim: Critics are embarrassed by a news organisation with a different agenda
Grade argues that criticism of Ofcom’s handling of GB News stems from discomfort with the channel’s editorial agenda. But that misses the point. There has been little serious criticism of GB News for choosing different stories, covering issues from a different perspective, or pursuing a different editorial agenda from other broadcasters. Nor should there be. Regulators have no business dictating what stories broadcasters choose to cover. And we have never advocated shutting the channel down. The concern is something quite different. It is whether Ofcom is properly enforcing the rules that parliament has given it: ensuring due impartiality on matters of controversy and preventing audiences from being materially misled.
For those of us who have spent decades working in journalism and media regulation, that is the issue: not what stories GB News chooses to cover, as Grade suggests, but whether Ofcom is regulating the channel in accordance with its own code. It must be treated the same as other broadcasters, and a regulator should see that it is.
Stewart Purvis is a former editor in chief of ITN and Ofcom contents and standards partner; Chris Banatvala is a former Ofcom director of standards and member of the content board. He is an independent expert member of the Sky News Board
Leave a Reply