[Adsales]

Are you really comparing the Pledge with 5 panelists, who clearly state their views and opinions from the outset, and where panelists with differing views are selected on purpose so they can challenge each other and therefore create a "natural" balance, with two Tory MPs interviewing the Tory chancellor entirely avoiding any uncomfortable questions?

Add to that the fact that Ofcom's accepted definition of a current affairs programme is:

"A programme which contains explanation and analysis of current events and ideas, including material dealing with political or industrial controversy or with public policy."

I don't know if you've actually watched the show in question but neither did it explain nor did it analyse the budget. It was, for all intents and purposes, a party political broadcast presenting the budget proposals as the best thing since sliced bread. Nothing was challenged apart from issues which upset some Tory backbenchers and even those questions ended with Hunt giving responses to placate the backbenchers and to portray a party and government in harmony and unity.

Had he been interviewed by Peston or Kuenssberg then questions based on opposition criticism, opposition proposals; and uncomfortable questions about freezing the income tax thresholds would have been asked, among other things.

So as it stands, we were subjected to a party political broadcast on a channel which has NEWS as part of its name all the while the Treasury was promoting the interview all over social media.

The Sky News Climate show (not sure why you would even bring that up), has always allowed climate change deniers' views, as ridiculous as they are.

Ask yourself this - would E&P do an interview in the same format with Starmer or Yousaf without challenging them and simply letting them portray they views, plans and proposals? Or for that matter, would GB News allow it? I'd say it's pretty clear that the answer is no to both.

You're looking at it through a lens of how you'd have desired an interview to be done rather than the actual Code obligations for an entertainment show (non regulated news content) Omission of subject matter isn't a 'due impartiality' issue; neither is specific challenge to individual points  It's a broader overall situation that's context dependant. 

Reading the transcripts of the full interview,  it's strikes me that Hunt was challenged, but from a right wing Tory perspective on taxation rather than a more balanced range of  challenging questions.  However the angle of questioning isn't an Ofcom issue.

I personally think having two Tory MPs host a show of that format is difficult to keep compliant with the applicable code [for general entertainment programming] certainty would fail if it was News content, and there's muddier waters here in that the MPs claimed in HoC payments declaration that their show is News. It's also a poor show that's expensive and underperform the channel, however that's not the issue.

GB News may be at risk of a rule breach with that edition of the show,  and that's what our independent regulatory body is their for; its a quasi judicial process that's evidence led.

The Pledge and Climate Show are raised simply to show that they aren't content to which Ofcom would apply  regulated News classifications; and  there is no such thing as a 'news channel' licence in the UK. You list reasons why the Pledge was different, but from a regulatory perspective it existed as an entertainment show.

Ofcoms governing laws and codes are pretty much the same since its early 00s inception; I'm pointing out to the poster these facts and asking why its a disgrace, when the regulation is constant.

Oh  and the fact that Sky's Climate show has some opposing views doesn't make it news,  it simply has to obay the DUE impartiality rules in same way  any other broadcast content does.

The Code applies to licensees full stop. For national TV and radio services, news programming must follow rules 5.1 to 5.3, all programming must follow rules 5.4 to 5.12 as soon as it deals with "matters of political or industrial controversy or with current public policy".

Rule 5.5 requires due impartiality.

Look at the Ofcom bulletin as to why Dorries' interview with Johnson met the expected requirements (e.g. panelists with differing views, Dorries disagreeing with Johnson, others disagreeing with what Johnson said, the programme covering more than just Johnson etc.).

www.ofcom.org.uk 

Based on its assessment, Ofcom saw no potential breach and therefore decided not to investigate further.

E&P's interview of Hunt on the other hand is being investigated because there are reasons to believe that due impartiality as required under rule 5.5 was not upheld.