GB News - Printable Version

+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: News and Sport Presentation (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: GB News (/showthread.php?tid=29)

---

RE: GB News - Jon - 15-02-2024

(15-02-2024, 03:22 PM)Division2023 Wrote:  I think this the first time in their three year history GB News will be live all night.

I believe they were live through the night when the old Queen died.

---

RE: GB News - freeview87 - 16-02-2024

(15-02-2024, 07:21 PM)Jon Wrote:  I believe they were live through the night when the old Queen died.

They weren't live all night. Think only till 1am

---

RE: GB News - TheGregmeister - 16-02-2024

(16-02-2024, 02:28 PM)freeview87 Wrote:  They weren't live all night. Think only till 1am

I noticed they were still awaiting the Wellingborough result wellafter 3am, and the actual result was announced shortly after 4am.

---

RE: GB News - Jon - 16-02-2024

(16-02-2024, 08:53 PM)TheGregmeister Wrote:  I noticed they were still awaiting the Wellingborough result wellafter 3am, and the actual result was announced shortly after 4am.

I think they’re talking about when the Queen died.

---

RE: GB News - Keith - 19-02-2024

In perhaps unsurprising news Ofcom are investigating the People's forum that featured Rishi Sunak. The Ofcom investigation is around "due impartiality requirements" and rules 5.11 and 5.12, ref https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68336048 .

Presumably GB News are will be hoping that by stating they've invited Keir Starmer to do a people's forum on their channel they'll have sufficiently covered the impartiality requirements. (Whether the Labour party leader would want to is an entirely different matter.) At least they've learnt from past mistakes and ensured it was hosted by Stephen Dixon, rather than a former or current Conservative MP.

---

RE: GB News - Stockland Hillman - 19-02-2024

Probably Ofcoms most ludicrous decision in a long time, and indicates a worrying politicisation of what should be an impartial regulator.

Set aside pro/anti GB News views for a second.

Effectively Ofcom is opening the door to saying that a public audince isn't sufficient to convey different view's on matters of public controversy, and they require filtering through a partisan efectively 'approved' lens of a rival professional political activists/commentators must appear instead to deliver 'balance'

It's a crazy position. The public is the ultimate arbiter, political partys are (or should be) just proxy to their views.

It also suggests that non participation of a major figure in programming effectively vetoes view's of a rival figure from being communicated on a channel. So that rules out leadership debates within a single party; phone ins with a Mayor or national leader without prior agreement to participate on alternative shows for political rivals

Ofcom have really created a minefield for themselves and every broadcaster

---

RE: GB News - agemame - 20-02-2024

I think the timing may also be a problem, in general you don't allow 1 hour of focus on the head of a political party unopposed the week of two important byelections. That said, Ofcom can hardly say it helped him out, can it?

---

RE: GB News - Adsales - 20-02-2024

Ofcom is entirely right to investigate. The issue is not with Sunak "answering" questions from the audience; it is with the requirements set out in rules 5.11 and 5.12.

The programme naturally dealt with numerous matters which meet the definition of "major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy" (NHS, small boats, inflation, Israel/Gaza etc.)

That by default means that opposing views ("a wide range of significant views") must be provided either in the programme or in a "clearly linked and timely" programme. Neither happened here. Sunak was allowed to "answer" all questions and claim "Labour don't have a plan". Unopposed.

Of course one could argue that the questions themselves should be challenging and therefore present opposing views but that of course was not the case either (with the exception of the bizarre vaccine injury disruption). It of course could not be the case as the audience was made up of "Don't Knows" which naturally means the majority were 2019 Conservative voters who have turned away from the party either to Reform or to "I can't be bothered anymore". Every single poll clearly shows that Labour has held on to almost all of its 2019 voters while the Tories have only held on to approximately 30%. The 70% who indicate they will no longer vote Conservative are split 75% Reform or will not vote vs 25% any other party.

The argument of having offered Starmer the same kind of show is of course moot - even if he were to agree to take part at some point, that pogramme would neither be clearly linked to Sunak's nor would it be shown in a timely manner. And it still leaves the issue that Sunak was able to have an hour of an unopposed political broadcast.

On the face of it, a programme like it has not previously been broadcast in the UK. Interviews or Q&A session with individual party leaders (e.g.during conference season or during an election campaign) are always broadcast within days of each other (i.e. clearly linked... so much so that the host clearly states date and time of the next programme at the end).

---

RE: GB News - Brekkie - 20-02-2024

TBH considering the many things that have warranted investigation over the last couple of years I didn't think this would be one of them. Not a great production perhaps, but I saw it as just giving Sunak enough rope to cause himself problems.

In a way though Starmer refusing probably saves their skin as I suspect he'd have been given a much more hostile audience, and that is where impartiality is an issue.

---

RE: GB News - Stockland Hillman - 20-02-2024

As usual as interesting viewpoint Adsales, but it misunderstands the longtime understanding that broadcasters have on issues of balance in news.

Let's get one thing out the way. Line by line rebuttals of politicians sentences has never been done, as its Impractical. The Sunak claim Labour "don't have a plan" [on immigration] can't and shouldn't be rebutted by a simple "they do" in the way Suzanna Reed did on GMB, as that's just repeating another political statement as fact without context and analysis if it.

So you can see if every contentious statement on TV or Radio had to have a officially approved type of balancing challange, it would be unworkable.

Broadcasters are legally entitled to choose the editorial topics they cover, in this case GBN chose the battleground seats of 'red wall' voters so the challenging balance on matters of public controversy IS the public. The fact they usually have very different priorities to those of political journalists and activists is irrelevant - it's still balance.


It's not a GBN defence from me, because party leadership debates would also be impacted. Both SNP and Welsh Labour have changed leaders/first ministers and have hours of airtime which effectively is an unchallenged advert for the party with a narrow gap between the parties candidates. The views of rival parties isn't featured, despite the wide public audience. Why? Because the broadcaster is entitled to choose the topic and frame of the discussion and cover it in the most appropriate way.

If its protected speech for Leadership debates then its protected for every other sub topic including the GBN redwall discussion, outside of an legally defined national election period - where the law is clearly set out in primary legislation.

All regulatory rules must be clear, consistent and applicable in all situations. Ofcom are in danger of breaking the good work they've done over 20 years

---