20-02-2024, 12:10 PM
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
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