[Brekkie]

And the anecdotal evidence would suggest that the issue has if anything got worse since the period from which these complaints relate too.

[TheGregmeister]

That's a in-house created problem due to the simple fact that a huge amount of their "talent" are serving MPs.

Strictly speaking, the only currently serving MP's that have their own regular shows on GBN are Jacob Rees-Mogg (Tory) and Lee Anderson (ex-Tory now Refom UK). Esther McVey is no longer a presenter on GBN since being given a ministerial role in the Cabinet and her husband Philip Davies (also a currently serving Tory MP) no longer presents any shows on the channel although as far I've seen recently they have occasionally appeared as guests, albeit separately.

[Jon]

Looks like there is a new style lower third strap for ‘Trump The Interview’ on Farage tonight.

[Brekkie]

Technically in purdah there will be no serving MPs anyway, so whether those rules then extend to election candidates and whether they cover any outgoing MP (not sure if JRM is one of those standing down) remains to be seen - but given the rules have very much been bent to get them into the GB News schedules outside an election you can ensure GB News will be ready to argue any election related content hosted by one of these characters has nothing to do with the election. And if they do breech the rules the regulatory consequences, if there are any, won't come until long after the event anyway - so even if they should affect the outcome (which I doubt they will) the damage is already done.

Feels like GB News are somewhat becoming the Man City of the news industry, minus the success.

[Jon]

The rules on featuring election candidates are are much apply tighter than sitting MPs outside of an election period and any rival candidate would have to have equal coverage.

[Newshound47]

In fact page 7 says the rules for election candidates are even stricter and would cover all GB News content as well as something like James Cracknall appearing on the BBC Olympics coverage if the Election had been called by then. www.ofcom.org.uk 

[Stooky Bill]

GB News has supposedly told it's staff to make all their programmes 'watertight' to avoid any future Ofcom fines

inews.co.uk 

Leaked GB News memo warns staff: ‘Make shows too watertight for Ofcom to attack’
'Not even a 20ft Goliath should find a crack in our defences,' staff t…
  Source: inews.co.uk

That's not exactly a novel policy for a broadcaster to follow the Ofcom code

[strollfan]

In fact page 7 says the rules for election candidates are even stricter and would cover all GB News content as well as something like James Cracknall appearing on the BBC Olympics coverage if the Election had been called by then. www.ofcom.org.uk 

Yes, I've seen Ofcom decisions concerning these rules state that even local councillors cannot host a radio show about gardening, or something as minor as that, once the purdah/election period begins. Any appearance on GBN without equal screentime given to all candidates facing that "election candidate" would be looked upon unkindly by Ofcom.

[leewilliams]

Chris Rogers - who was brought into edit GBN breakfast six months ago (but conspicuously never included it on his X bio) - is leaving already:

x.com 

[EasternEagle]

GB News were running an article attacking OFCOM earlier on today on their website, it's now been put behind a paywall, but the article itself stated that it's an attempt by the mainstream media to 'shut down diversity in TV journalism'

www.gbnews.com 

'It's NOT ok to try to get GB News shut down! The channel is leading explosion o…
Mark Littlewood, Chair of Pop Con has his say on the attacks on GB News
  Source: www.gbnews.com

What isn’t fine is the presence of a cohort of those who aren’t attracted by the GB News offering actively seeking to get the platform infracted or shut down. So much for diversity and inclusion when it comes to news and current affairs coverage on TV.

The nub of the problem is how television is regulated in modern Britain. We have a regulatory structure which was established for a different era. Our rules and procedures may have made some kind of sense back in the day but make precious little sense in 2024.

This means the sector’s regulator, OFCOM, is increasingly outdated. Its approach to protecting a tech savvy and intelligent public is patronising. Viewers know the personalities and attitudes of presenters.

A faceless state regulator interceding to ensure that a politician from a particular party can’t interview a colleague from the same party is treating the public as fools. If lines of interrogation aren’t rigorous or questioning is too softball, the audience will switch channels.

It seems from what I've seen of the channel last few days and what is happening online, rather than heed the warnings by OFCOM they are now going to play the everyone is against us routine, this is bound to creep into their presentation.