A GB News programme hosted by Conservative MPs Esther McVey and Philip Davies broke impartiality rules by failing to represent “an appropriately wide range” because it didn’t include any Left-wing viewpoints, Ofcom has ruled. The Telegraph has the story.
The TV channel was found to be in breach of the broadcasting code for the third time this year over a show featuring an interview with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt.
Ofcom said Esther McVey and Philip Davies, two sitting Conservatives who present a Saturday morning show, failed to properly scrutinise the Chancellor when he was interviewed ahead of the Budget in March.
The broadcast watchdog received 45 complaints about the March 11th episode of ‘Saturday Morning with Esther and Philip’.
An investigation found that the programme was “overwhelmingly reflective of the viewpoints of different strands of opinion within the Conservative Party”.
It added: “There were only very limited references to wider perspectives on U.K. economic and fiscal policy in the context of the forthcoming budget.
“For example, no real attention was given anywhere in the programme to the viewpoints of politicians, political parties, organisations or individuals that either, for example, criticised, opposed or put forward policy alternatives to the viewpoints given by the three Conservative politicians.”
The broadcasting code requires impartiality on “matters of major political and industrial controversy” and says that “an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight”.
Ofcom has the power to impose fines, demand corrections or in extreme cases remove licences for breaching the code, although GB News’ breach was not seen as serious enough to warrant a penalty. …
Ofcom said that all three MPs had been in broad agreement on the principle that taxes should be cut to boost the economy.
Worth reading in full.
If failure to include Left-wing views in a TV show is a breach, why is a failure to include Right-wing views – a frequent failing of mainstream broadcasters – not also a breach? Or is this yet another instance where it only goes one way? What about the persistent failure to include anti-Net Zero viewpoints, anti-lockdown viewpoints or anti-Covid-vaccination viewpoints in mainstream TV shows? Whole swathes of opinion are regularly excluded from mainstream broadcasting. But when GB News dares to air a show where no one on that particular programme thinks the U.K.’s current historically high tax levels shouldn’t be cut, it’s suddenly a problem deserving of reprimand. Non-woke views are censored; woke views are mandatory.
GB News said it was “disappointed” by the ruling and that Ofcom had an “imprecise” definition of “due impartiality”. A spokesman said: “We take compliance seriously, and we believe our programme embraced this. We will reflect on Ofcom’s view.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
They are paid to get their results to map to a pre-determined outcome.
If you want to discuss weather talk to a farmer.
If you want a new roof, talk to a roofer.
If you want data fraud, bullshit, bafflegab, fake footnotes – talk to a quackademic, researcher, thought leader, expert, Phd Pretty Happy Dude smoking his pot, paid by special interests.
You live in a dream world Neo.
Indeed. Having experience or qualifications in a particular domain doesn’t make you an expert. Those things MAY be a pointer to you being an expert, but your ability to predict outcomes at consistently statistically significant better than random chance is what qualifies you, at least in the scientific domains.
If we’re to give “the experts” the benefit of the doubt and are presuming their solutions were genuinely sincere (and not following some pre-planned agenda to usher in a dystopia), the simple fact remains when you’ve a collection of single-minded academics who specialise, even the smartest and most educated amongst us aren’t always the best equipped at seeing the bigger picture. They can’t see the wood for the trees, to coin a phrase and that’s not even including the group-think, echo-chamber phenomenon we know is a reality.
They’re often living completely different lives, indifferent to the daily struggles of many and perhaps it’s a consequence of our education system that breeds arrogance, or we’ve simply a finite amount of space between our ears but I know from experience, my brother is highly educated in an academic sense but is oblivious and quite useless at mechanical quandary (for example – it’s not a matter of talent, his brain works differently). SAGE proved their single-mindedness in their presenting a comprehensive solution to impact society with positive intent but failing to include and incorporate the collateral damage caused by their own interventions negated all their hard work and is only something that can occur when they’re held in such high regard and beyond reproach. Never again, I say – or at the very least they’ve a lot of convincing to do to regain our trust.
Everything SAGE has propagated had damaging direct effects and was claimed to have collateral benefits which couldn’t really be quantified. No serious scientist would refer to himself as sage. That’s already a bullshit term supposed to appeal to superstitions conjectured to exist in the general population.
A great day for mankind! The perpetuum mobile has finally been invented! Its composed of social scientists researching themselves in circles, thereby stimulation more social science research!
Expert predictions predictably bad
Yellow Freedom Boards – next event
Monday 7th November 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction B3430 Nine Mile Ride &
New Wokingham Road,
Wokingham RG40 3BA
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
As has been mentioned previously Social Scientist” is a classic oxymoron