20-02-2024, 06:18 PM
In my opinion, there's a fundamental problem with the whole concept of 'balance' as currently interpreted by Ofcom.
Until the last few years, UK broadcasters have generally operated on the understanding that 'balance' requires a broadly representative range of opinions to be included within a particular newscast, whether it's an episode of Newsnight, an hour on the ITV News Channel (RIP), a regular Sky News bulletin, or a BBC regional news programme.
This wasn't a perfect situation by any means: all too often, it resulted in a simplistic interpretation, giving equal airtime to opposing viewpoints, even if one of those opinions was on the fringes of credibility or decency. On the whole, however, it was a functional solution, if for no other reason than viewers could sit down for 30 minutes or so and get a reasonably broad range of views on a number of topics.
In recent years, the notion of 'balance' has been reinterpreted by newcomers to the market -- and accepted, and implicitly endorsed by Ofcom -- as something along the lines of: 'you can broadcast any (lawful) views at any time, and as often as you like, as long as you can demonstrate that someone, at some point, has had the opportunity to present an alternative viewpoint'.
And so, we go, sometimes for hours at a time, on GB News (and, to a far lesser extent, on Talk TV) with right-wing and far-right viewpoints being promoted by guests, and unchallenged by presenters; or simply being explicitly stated by the presenters themselves, in the case of Farage, Rees-Mogg, and others.
When they eventually come, the 'alternative viewpoints' -- i.e. anything that deviates from the institutionally right-leaning outlook of the channel -- are fiercely interrogated and challenged, often ridiculed, and frequently dismissed as 'woke'; either by a fiercely right-wing guest, or again, by the presenter themselves.
This is not 'balance'. This is performative balance. It pretends to represent a wide range of views while under-representing those views, and while scrutinising them in a way that is curiously absent when it comes to views of which the presenters, guests and audience approve.
Even if Starmer had accepted the invitation from GB News, it's surely ludicrous to believe that he would have been give the same softly-softly let-him-say-what-he-wants approach that was granted to Sunak. Nothing in GB News' coverage of Labour politics or politicians suggests that Starmer would get a free pass to say whatever he wanted, essentially unchallenged, as Sunak did.
If he had accepted, there would have been no real balance, except in the most simplistic, infantile interpretation: Sunak had a forum, Starmer had a forum. 'Balance'.
This whole notion of balance on GB News is utter fiction. How can any sense of balance be appreciated, by the viewer, when that viewer might have to watch for several hours before they finally hear a counterpoint being presented with any real passion -- only for it to be shouted down as woke, lefty nonsense when it's presented?
What kind of balance might be achieved, even if Starmer were afforded a Sunak-style session of anything-goes unchallenged banter, if the channel then spent every subsequent hour angrily bloviating against every word that had come out of his mouth?
How can any reasonable or intelligent person believe, for even a moment, that balance exists on GB News, when every single day, the same handful of right-wing-taint-tickling issues (immigrants, Harry & Meghan, Labour, BBC bias, BBC stars, BBC arrogance, immigrants, the Royal Family, Keir Starmer, the licence fee, Sadiq Khan, immigrants, woke celebrities, BBC wokeness, Gary Lineker, immigrants) are being relentlessly discussed in the most disparaging (and quite f**king clearly, the least impartial) way throughout the entire day?
There is no balance on GB News. It's irrationally, objectively delusional to believe otherwise.
And I can't help but feel emboldened in that claim when I see that GB News literally markets itself in the US as "British and balanced". Indeed, that says it all -- GBN is every single bit as fair and balanced as that other bastion of impartiality, and defender of all that is holier-than-thou: Fox News.
Until the last few years, UK broadcasters have generally operated on the understanding that 'balance' requires a broadly representative range of opinions to be included within a particular newscast, whether it's an episode of Newsnight, an hour on the ITV News Channel (RIP), a regular Sky News bulletin, or a BBC regional news programme.
This wasn't a perfect situation by any means: all too often, it resulted in a simplistic interpretation, giving equal airtime to opposing viewpoints, even if one of those opinions was on the fringes of credibility or decency. On the whole, however, it was a functional solution, if for no other reason than viewers could sit down for 30 minutes or so and get a reasonably broad range of views on a number of topics.
In recent years, the notion of 'balance' has been reinterpreted by newcomers to the market -- and accepted, and implicitly endorsed by Ofcom -- as something along the lines of: 'you can broadcast any (lawful) views at any time, and as often as you like, as long as you can demonstrate that someone, at some point, has had the opportunity to present an alternative viewpoint'.
And so, we go, sometimes for hours at a time, on GB News (and, to a far lesser extent, on Talk TV) with right-wing and far-right viewpoints being promoted by guests, and unchallenged by presenters; or simply being explicitly stated by the presenters themselves, in the case of Farage, Rees-Mogg, and others.
When they eventually come, the 'alternative viewpoints' -- i.e. anything that deviates from the institutionally right-leaning outlook of the channel -- are fiercely interrogated and challenged, often ridiculed, and frequently dismissed as 'woke'; either by a fiercely right-wing guest, or again, by the presenter themselves.
This is not 'balance'. This is performative balance. It pretends to represent a wide range of views while under-representing those views, and while scrutinising them in a way that is curiously absent when it comes to views of which the presenters, guests and audience approve.
Even if Starmer had accepted the invitation from GB News, it's surely ludicrous to believe that he would have been give the same softly-softly let-him-say-what-he-wants approach that was granted to Sunak. Nothing in GB News' coverage of Labour politics or politicians suggests that Starmer would get a free pass to say whatever he wanted, essentially unchallenged, as Sunak did.
If he had accepted, there would have been no real balance, except in the most simplistic, infantile interpretation: Sunak had a forum, Starmer had a forum. 'Balance'.
This whole notion of balance on GB News is utter fiction. How can any sense of balance be appreciated, by the viewer, when that viewer might have to watch for several hours before they finally hear a counterpoint being presented with any real passion -- only for it to be shouted down as woke, lefty nonsense when it's presented?
What kind of balance might be achieved, even if Starmer were afforded a Sunak-style session of anything-goes unchallenged banter, if the channel then spent every subsequent hour angrily bloviating against every word that had come out of his mouth?
How can any reasonable or intelligent person believe, for even a moment, that balance exists on GB News, when every single day, the same handful of right-wing-taint-tickling issues (immigrants, Harry & Meghan, Labour, BBC bias, BBC stars, BBC arrogance, immigrants, the Royal Family, Keir Starmer, the licence fee, Sadiq Khan, immigrants, woke celebrities, BBC wokeness, Gary Lineker, immigrants) are being relentlessly discussed in the most disparaging (and quite f**king clearly, the least impartial) way throughout the entire day?
There is no balance on GB News. It's irrationally, objectively delusional to believe otherwise.
And I can't help but feel emboldened in that claim when I see that GB News literally markets itself in the US as "British and balanced". Indeed, that says it all -- GBN is every single bit as fair and balanced as that other bastion of impartiality, and defender of all that is holier-than-thou: Fox News.