15-03-2023, 06:01 PM
(15-03-2023, 05:54 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:Where did I say it did exist in Ofcom definitions, that doesn’t mean it’s not a channel branding itself and News. I accept that Ofcom would class it as discussion.(15-03-2023, 05:01 PM)Jon Wrote: I think it’s irrelevant to the point though.So this category of 'news branded channel', where can I find it in the Ofcom Code, Communications Act or Broadcasting Act?
You’d have to think when these rules were written the likes of Esther McVey and Phillip Davies interviewing a senior member of their party, on a news branded channel would be exactly the sort of thing they were thinking of shouldn’t happen.
Anyway, this is probably the most relevant rule, I really do wonder if all programmes pass the due impartiality rules.
5.8: Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.
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.
5.10: A personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signalled to the audience at the outset. This is a minimum requirement and may not be sufficient in all circumstances. (Personality phone-in hosts on radio are exempted from this provision unless their personal view status is unclear.)
Some programmes have alternative views represented which are generally shut down by other panelists or presenters, so programmes don’t bother at all.
However that due impartiality bit is about programmes in general. I think it’s certainly open to interpretation.
For the record, I have no problem with there being a right leaning channel. I’m interesting in the question of whether it is complying and I would personally find it a more entertaining watch if there was more debate and less agreement on the channel in general. But I accept that’s not what works for them or what they want to do.