Tag Archives: media

HAS OFCOM’S ‘PLAN B’ FOR FARAGE PASSED THE NANDY TEST ?

Posted on by
Reply

Last month (September 2025) the Secretary of State for Culture,Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, launched an attack on “political polemic presented as news” and cited Nigel Farage’s programme on GB News. She told MPs on the Culture Select Committee :

“Ofcom is currently consulting on tightening the rules around politicians presenting news programmes and news in any format and that is something that we as a government strongly support. We will look closely at what Ofcom present to us but it is an area in which we intend to act”.

Just in case Ofcom wasn’t listening, she said something similar at the Royal Television Society conference and again in an interview with the Media Confidential podcast. And in a further flourish before Ofcom announced its decision she followed up on research from Cardiff University, funded by AHRC and carrIed out by YouGov.This found ‘public opposition to allowing politicians to front current affairs programmes – contradicting research carried out by the regulator, Ofcom’. Responding to this finding the Secretary of State doubled down saying the public were “right to be concerned about elected politicians playing the role of news presenters”.

Now we have Ofcom’s decision about politician presenters in a document which also sets out its views on the responses to its consultation. Among those responses was one which I submitted with former Ofcom colleague Chris Banatvala.

There has been much confusion about what the Ofcom announcement means. First the easy bit: the original proposal which Ofcom put out to consultation has been dropped because a range of objectors (including us and GB News) argued it was unworkable. Now the complicated alternative. Ofcom has come up with its Plan B which some readers think is tightening the rules as Lisa Nandy wants and some think loosens them which she certainly doesn’t.

Chris Banatvala has done his own independent forensic examination of the announcement. He explains that Ofcom has decided not to make any changes to the Broadcasting Code which would tighten the rules but instead has refined its ‘non-binding guidance’ in a way which allows the Farage show to continue. He concludes “For the first time ever, Ofcom seems to be allowing politicians to present ‘news, in whatever form’ within non-news programmes but will then consider a number of factors before deciding whether the content is impartial” .

I read that as a loosening of the rules and you don’t have to take my word for it, the positive response from GB News to the announcement confirms this. But maybe the regulator won’t mind a bit of confusion all round, a bit of ‘creative ambiguity’ to leave some potential jeopardy for GB News if it goes too far for the regulator.

We await Ms Nandy’s judgement on whether Ofcom’s ‘Plan B’ has passed her test, has Ofcom tightened ‘the rules around politicians presenting news programmes and news in any format’? .

One other point worth making; the Ofcom announcement does not push back hard against criticism from us and some academics about the quality of that audience research which it has relied upon to justify its position. Instead it promises to ‘explore conducting further research into audience attitudes towards news and current affairs on TV and radio’. 

So the next steps to watch out for:

  • Any response of any kind from Lisa Nandy as to whether Ofcom has met her test.
  • If it hasn’t, any sign of a way in which the regulator and the minister could find common ground, maybe fresh public attitude research.
  • Failing that, any sign that the Government does or doesn’t have the taste or the time for legislation?
  • Meanwhile any new complaints about GB News output which become test cases of Ofcom’s ‘Plan B’.

Some recommendations: Giles Winn’s newsletter ‘ScreenPower’ on Substack is a way of staying in touch with issues ‘where TV and Film meet politics and power’.Roger Bolton’s Beeb Watch podcast has an interview with Professor Stephen Cushion of Cardiff University about his research on the audience’s views on impartiality. 

Has the time come to consider changing the law on British broadcasting? Ofcom seems to think so.

Posted on by
Reply

For 22 years the Communications Act has been the law of the land on all things broadcasting. This week the regulator created by that act, Ofcom, announced it was starting a process that may lead to changes in the law. If this comes as news to you it may because you’ve had better things to do during July 2025 but it could also be the absence of news coverage. What regulation and legislation does Ofcom think needs changing and does the review have any impact on Ofcom’s disputes with GB News? Here’s my take:

1.What was the Ofcom announcement ? 

On 21st July 2025 Ofcom issued a press release headlined ‘Public Service content should be findable on YouTube’. The introduction said ‘Urgent steps must be taken to ensure that public service media content is easy to find and discover on third-party platforms, under new Ofcom recommendations to secure the system’s survival’. YouTube was the ‘third-party platform’ highlighted as being particularly important.

2. What were these Ofcom recommendations?

Of the regulator’s six recommendations the first four were about the future of PSBs (public service broadcasters such as BBC, Channel Four, ITV and Channel Five) and PSMs (public service media which Ofcom defines as mostly but not uniquely PSBs). Recommendation five was about the importance of media literacy. Sixth on the list of recommendations was ‘Streamlined regulation to strip away any undated and unnecessary restrictions’.

3.What kind of restrictions does Ofcom want to ‘strip away’.

No examples were given but the overall language in the press release was bold: ‘We are launching a fundamental review of our regulation of broadcast TV and radio’ and ‘this may involve legislative change as well as changes to our regulation’. In the body of the report there was no mention of ‘launching’ any ‘fundamental review’ but a lower key commitment: ‘we will review the regulation across linear and online services to determine if greater consistency is needed to protect audiences from harm no matter what they are watching and listening’. 

4. So what, as they say in the regulatory jargon, is ‘in scope’ for this review?  

I put that question to the Ofcom Media Relations Team and got this quote from an Ofcom spokesperson; ‘On the scope of this – we will look at what regulation needs to change to reflect market conditions and continue to protect and support audiences wherever they are. We’ll have more to say by the end of the year.’.

5. Any other clues? 

It’s worth listening to an interview which Cristina Nicolotti Squires, Ofcom’s Group Director of Broadcast and Media, gave to Matt Deegan of the Media Club podcast. At 17′ 30″ into the podcast Deegan put a direct question, was the review “about trying to change some of those rules” such as those which have caused regulatory and legal disputes with GB News. He didn’t get a direct answer, he was told that the review was about “making sure our regulation is fit for now”. It was “kind of like looking at it all really”. But some issues did get a passing specific mention from Nicolotti Squires: TV advertising, product placement, the future of the TV licence, and one piece of thinking aloud: instead of the separate content codes for broadcasting and video-on-demand “should there just be one code?”

6. What happens next?

Look out for Ofcom having ‘more to say by the end of the year’. There will also be ‘a comprehensive call for evidence this autumn’ and Ofcom will ‘seek input from stakeholders’. One moment in the podcast underlines that this process is nowhere near ready for launch. When Matt Deegan asked how his listeners could send in their views, the Ofcom executive seemed surprised: “that’s a good point” , but on reflection she reassured him: “everything is on our website”.In fact nothing about that particular process is on the website. 

7. How does all this connect with Ofcom’s problems with GB News?

Clearly Ofcom is going to be cautious saying anything while it considers the responses to its consultation on a tweak to the rules . The submission by Chris Banatvala and myself opposing that tweak and arguing for the enforcement of the existing rules is on this website. But a longer term review of the Broadcast Code and the legal framework could offer the regulator the opportunity to ask parliament to either tighten the rules on impartiality, relax them or abolish them for channels such as GB News.

8.Why did this announcement get tacked on as the last recommendation in a press release about PSB and the last page in a 65 page report when it potentially affects so much more ?

  • It includes all the required political buzzphrases such as ‘strip away regulation’ and ‘encouraging growth and innovation’.
  • Ofcom wants to get on the record the words ‘We are committing to update our regulation of broadcast TV and radio’ but isn’t actually ready to start. 
  • Should Ofcom ever need an ‘off ramp’ from its GB News problems the review could provide one.

Finally, here’s what my former Ofcom colleague Chris Banatvala of Bear Consultancy Ltd thinks:

‘Ofcom has always prided itself on regulating only where necessary and certainly no more than the law requires. Nevertheless, there appear to be 3 possible options on the table. First, it may think that it needs to tighten up the rules to make sure all broadcasters follow them in the same way. Second, it may consider there’s room to be more liberal with the rules but within the current statutory framework. Or perhaps, third, it believes that the current legislation is just too out of date, and it believes now is the time for a root and branch review of the law and wants to make recommendations to the Government (for example, removing the universal requirement for due impartiality on all broadcasters). Given that the UK is no longer a member of the EU, it doesn’t have to comply with its Directives – and this could result in greater flexibility in areas like the number of advertising minutes per hour, also sponsorship and product placement. But a decision to no longer follow these European rules could have consequences elsewhere.

Looking at the review, itself, it’s difficult to interpret what direction Ofcom is going in’

WHAT OFCOM NEEDS TO DO AFTER DEFEAT IN THE HIGH COURT BY GB NEWS

Posted on by
3

It is the first time in its history that Ofcom has lost a judicial review on an issue of content regulation. Even more painful for the regulator was that victory went to the broadcaster with a problematic compliance record, GB News, which it has warned about its future conduct. I’ve given my views on the significance of the case to the podcast ‘Roger Bolton’s Beebwatch’ but I also set them out here.

When regulators are challenged in the High Court the assumption is that judges will not want to intervene unless they are convinced there has been a mistake. In her 117 paragraph judgement in GB News Limited v The Office of Communications Mrs Justice Collins Rice spelt out how Ofcom had indeed made mistakes. She explained why she upheld the legal challenge by GB News and decided that Ofcom’s rulings that two GB News broadcasts in 2023 breached the code on ‘due impartiality and due accuracy in news’ were unlawful.

GB News said ‘Our court victory is hugely significant for the entire British broadcasting industry’. I agree but there could be unintended consequences they didn’t plan for.

Here’s my guide to what the case was about and what the implications are.

1.What was the specific issue?

Let’s start in June 2021, GB News went on the air with presenters putting their personal political views followed up by guests who mostly but not unanimously agreed with them. Some of us asked ‘is that allowed’ ? Ofcom said there was no problem.

March 2023. Conservative MPs began to present GB News programmes. More of us asked ‘is that allowed’? Ofcom explained that politicians can’t present ‘news programmes’ but they can present ‘current affairs programmes’. 

May and June 2023. On two occasions during Jacob Rees-Mogg’s programmes there was breaking news. On one Rees-Mogg read the result of a court case in America involving Donald Trump, on another he did a live interview with a reporter in Nottingham after the murders of two students and a local man.

For the few minutes that he was handling breaking news had Rees-Mogg become the presenter of a news programme -something which isn’t allowed – or was it simply a  news item in a ‘current affairs’ programme that he was allowed to present? 

March 2024. Ofcom recorded two breaches of the code on due impartiality. ‘Ofcom considered that the programmes in question were both news and current affairs programmes. Programmes can feature a mix of news and non-news content and move between the two. However, if a licensee chooses to use a politician as a presenter, it must take steps to ensure they do not act as a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter’.

GB News said see you in court. 

2. What did the judge think?

Here’s how Mrs Justice Collins Rice summarised Ofcom’s view: ‘Programmes could feature a mix of news and non-news content and move between the two’. But here’s what she thought: ‘A programme cannot be a news programme and a current affairs programme at the same time’. 

The Judge also contrasted the Ofcom view that a programme can be both news and current affairs with Ofcom’s requirement for the two genres to be treated completely separately in the quotas for public service broadcasters. Having it both ways was ‘a proposition which on the face of it appears to place the coherence of the statutory scheme under some strain’. 

I think that’s judicial code for ‘sort this out please’. 

As part of this sorting out a whole breed of ‘hybrid’ programmes, from Channel Four News to BBC Newsnight and rolling news programmes on news channels, will have to be regulated as either news or current affairs in the UK and on the international channels which Ofcom also regulates. So if the daytime rolling news hours on GB News are judged to be ‘news’ can the presenters continue to be quite so opinionated?

3. How did this situation come about ?

Ofcom only has itself to blame for this mess. When it conjured up the ‘news v current affairs’ divide to justify what GB News was transmitting it does not seem to have properly considered the wider implications. Take, for example, Section 320 of the Communications Act of 2003 when Parliament decided it wanted due impartiality not just in news or current affairs, however you define them , but in all ’matters of political or industrial controversy’  and ‘matters relating to current public policy’. How is that consistent with the output of a channel where all the prime time presenters express views from the political right with none from the centre or left? 

4. So what happens next? 

An Ofcom statement after the judgement said: ‘We accept the Court’s guidance on this important aspect of due impartiality in broadcast news and the clarity set out in its Judgment. We will now review and consult on proposed changes to the Broadcasting Code to restrict politicians from presenting news in any type of programme to ensure this is clear for all broadcasters.’ 

Since then it has also announced that it has withdrawn ‘the three other breach decisions against GB News’. Ofcom also removed all these decisions from GB News’s compliance record.

Ofcom now has to decide the terms of reference for its consultation.There will be a temptation for them to confine the consultation to the relatively narrow issue of what should happen when there is breaking news during ‘current affairs’ programmes presented by politicians. The judge did some drafting for Ofcom during her judgement and while the case has been underway GB News has handed over to the newsroom to avoid political presenters handling breaking news.

Limiting the issue for consultation in this way would mean missing an important opportunity to review a much broader and significant issue. It is also one in which there is a significant public interest: do we want more or less opinionated news programming on regulated television in the UK? That should be at the heart of the consultation. 

Mrs Justice Collins Rice has done a forensic review of Ofcom’s current impartiality regime and identified flaws which ‘place the coherence of the statutory scheme under some strain’. The consultation therefore needs to go back to the start of the road that led to the High Court and learn from the lessons of the past five years. What did Parliament mean by ‘news’? Did it intend there could be opinionated presenters of programmes reporting the news of the day? The outcome of this consultation will define due impartiality for the decade ahead until the planned switch-off of terrestrial TV inevitably triggers a compete overhaul of ‘broadcast’ regulation.

There will be debate about the meaning of statute and the translation into regulation. But Ofcom also has to ask itself some uncomfortable questions about its failure to enforce the Broadcasting Code when the meaning is crystal clear. Section 5.9 says ‘presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality’. How can Ofcom claim that a daily primetime programme called ‘Farage’ is not providing the leader of a political party with regular appearances to promote his views?

There is much that this consultation should consider.

Where does the Ofcom-GB News row go from here?

Posted on by
Reply

The five ‘guilty’ verdicts by Ofcom against GB News followed by the broadcaster’s angry response suggest there could be an escalating battle between the two sides over the issue of whether politicians, especially MPs, can present political programmes. I doubt it but there could be a bigger, wider and even more important battle ahead.

The creation of GB News has crystallised two separate but sometimes connected issues:

  1. What programmes are serving politicians, especially current MPs, allowed to present on TV ?
  2. When presenters, be they politicians or anybody else, express strong opinions on topical matters how is due impartiality achieved?

Issue 1:What programmes are serving politicians, especially current MPs, allowed to present on TV? 

Nothing in the current law, Ofcom Code or Guidance sets out what a serving politician can present, only what they can’t:

‘Rule 5.3: No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience’.

So what is a news programme that a politician can’t present?

The Code itself doesn’t define a news programme but the guidance has this significant section:

‘1.8 In terms of this section of the Code (i.e. the requirement for ‘due impartiality’ and ‘due accuracy’), news in whatever form would include news bulletins, news flashes and daily news magazine programmes’.

One thing is clear : the authors of the guidance intended that the definition of a news programme should cover more than just a news bulletin. ‘News in whatever form’ seems pretty clear. But soon after GB News started inviting politicians from the right – but not the centre or the left – to present daily programmes about the political news of the day Kevin Bakhurst, then the senior Ofcom executive in charge of content regulation, published a blog justifying the practice.

He produced a definition of a news programme which restricted it to a news bulletin. By doing so he argued that the politicians on GB News were not presenting ‘news programmes’ but what he called ‘current affairs’. The term ‘current affairs’ does not appear anywhere in the impartiality sections of the Communications Act, the Ofcom Code on Impartiality or the Ofcom guidance. This was, in effect, Kevin’s Law, there was never a consultation or debate about it. Ofcom now relies upon what was in his blog (he has since left Ofcom) to support its judgements.

The recent Ofcom judgements against GB News show the confusion this has created. When Jacob Rees-Mogg delivers his Moggolgue on that day’s political news, much of which goes unchallenged in the programme, he is apparently a ‘current affairs’ presenter but the moment he mentions breaking news he has been transformed into a ‘news presenter’ which, of course, he’s not allowed to be. Hope you are still with me. The obvious solution is not too difficult, every time news breaks inside these programmes the presenter should hand over to the newsroom presenter. That’s if GB News wants a solution rather than escalate the issue for its own reasons.

But none of this solves the bigger problem as we approach the local and General Elections, should politicians be allowed to present programmes about that day’s political news whether or not you call them News or Current affairs.

The simple and best solution: politicians should not be allowed to present programmes which report and debate the controversial issues of the day especially political news unless there are exceptional circumstances. That’s what we thought the rules said so why not return to that.

Which takes us onto …

Issue 2; When presenters, be they politicians or anybody else, express strong opinions on topical matters how is due impartiality achieved?

This issue has been overlooked during the row about politician presenters but in fact it is equally important .

What the Code currently says:

‘5.9: Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or “authored” programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views’.

A number of points arise from this:

  1. The implication of the first part of the first sentence is that news presenters and reporters in news programmes may not express their own views on current controversies or current public policy.
  2. However  presenters of non-news programmes can do so subject to the condition that alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented in the programme or a series of programmes. This is explained in the guidance: 

‘1.48 Broadcasters are free to include ‘issue-led’ presenters in their programming, as long as they maintain due impartiality as appropriate. In clearly signalled ‘personal view’ programmes, many in the audience are comfortable with adjusting their expectations of due impartiality. However, in order to maintain due impartiality, alternative viewpoints should be adequately represented’.

How adequate does the representation of alternative viewpoints have to be? The Code and Guidance are not prescriptive about this. According to a Guardian article :

‘The broadcast code enforced by Ofcom is clear that opinionated hosts are fine but “alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented”. It has not specified what exactly that means, but GB News insiders believe 10-15% representation for differing views is probably adequate’.

Ofcom refuses to put a figure on ‘adequate’ but I believe the figure of 10-15% is an accurate statement of the view inside Ofcom and GB News. Is that a satisfactory figure for Ofcom when the 85-90% of political views expressed on GB News come from the same perspective in every primetime programme every night?

The implications for the General Election campaign are serious. Ofcom has still not grappled with this issue of whether leading supporters of the same side (only actual candidates are disqualified during election campaigns) can appear night after night giving an unchallenged monologue on that day’s news. On Ofcom’s current interpretation of its code it seems this can continue during an election campaign. Surely that has to change. Can we really have election campaign coverage presented by Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage where they and like-minded folk are free to say what they like about other parties but Labour and Lib Dem supporters get only 10-15% of the programme airtime between them to respond?

SECOND THOUGHTS 2

Posted on by
Reply

How to conclude the BBC’s Lineker ‘psychodrama’

The more that MPs pressed Samir Shah for his views on Gary Lineker’s social media posts the more it sounded like the Chair-Elect of the BBC didn’t just think the football presenter had broken the rules Samir Shah wanted the system changed less than three months after it was announced.

“We need to find a solution to this”  he told his fourth questioner on Lineker, Clive Efford MP, at the pre-appointment hearing of the Culture Committee. “It has being going on for too long and it may be that the social media guidelines once again need to be looked at to make sure we somehow get this out of the public eye’. Dr Shah wanted to bring an end to what he called a ‘psychodrama’. 

’Don’t criticise the character of individual politicians in the UK’ seems a clear enough piece of BBC guidance to me and I’m not sure changing it would ‘get this out of the public eye’. The real choice is between enforcement and abolition.  The enforcement guidelines say  ‘For contract freelancers/presenters who are found to have breached the guidance there may be consequences including non-renewal or termination of contract’. But the BBC seems determined to avoid what they would see as a ‘running commentary’ on who has and hasn’t broken the rules and what consequences have followed. We still don’t have the BBC Executive’s judgement on the Lineker posts that their next Chair is so clear about. 

I have long thought the direction of travel is towards freedom of expression within the law for presenters other than those in news and current affairs.That solution may be the only way to conclude the psychodrama.

Are the next BBC Chair and the King on opposite sides in a culture war ?

“I’ve never been involved in any political activity at all. I’ve not been a campaigner” Samir Shah told Damian Green MP who took him through a checklist of any potential conflicts of interest.  Samir may not be a ‘campaigner’ but it is fair to call him a ’culture warrior’. He actively supports an organisation which says it is on ‘the most active front in a new culture war’.  The History Matters project was launched by leading centre-right think tank Policy Exchange in 2021 to ‘document the re-writing of history as it happens’ including the removal of certain statues on public display and the renaming of buildings and places. It claims such ‘action is being taken widely and quickly in a way that does not reflect public opinion or growing concern over our treatment of the past’. Samir Shah has been the Vice-Chair and is still a panel member of the project and he has  criticised institutions which are “far too readily acquiescing to noisy activism”. History Matters regularly lists examples of ‘what is happening’ without offering any judgement on them. The October 2023 ‘project compendium’ includes such undeniably woke events as an autumn festival at Kew Gardens ‘to celebrate Queer Nature’ but I was surprised to see Item 14 .’King Charles supports research into the Royal Family’s slavery links. The Palace have given researchers full access to the Royal Archives and the Royal Collection to investigate the family’s historic ties to slavery….The Palace has said that King Charles takes the issue ‘profoundly seriously’. Surely the Chair-Elect of the BBC doesn’t have a problem with that.

Growing demands for action on election misinformation

A leading expert on broadcasting regulation has warned that Ofcom may not have the right skillset to cope with the flow of fake news during the next General Election. Former Ofcom Director of Standards Chris Banatvala told a Voice of the Listener and Viewer conference that such was the innovation in technology that there could be fakery which is “so sophisticated that anyone can get fooled, including the regulator itself”. His warning follows a call by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Dame Angela McLean ,for a public information campaign before the next election which would warn voters how they could be tricked by AI-powered misinformation.

Chris Banatvala was on a panel on fake news which I chaired which also included Marianna Spring, Disinformation and Social Media Correspondent at the BBC and Chris Morris, CEO of FullFact.The video is recommended for anybody interested in AI and fake news.