According to the Telegraph, GB News is facing an investigation over claims it broke broadcasting rules by failing to challenge Donald Trump when he called climate change “a hoax”.
Ofcom said it had launched an investigation into a re-run of a GB News interview with Trump for the midday broadcast of The Weekend.
The regulator previously declined to launch an investigation into the original airing of the same interview 12 hours earlier, on GB News’s The Late Show Live, stating the programme had featured “alternative perspectives” as part of a panel discussion.
The new investigation concerns a second screening of the sit-down interview on November 15th. Ofcom is expected to examine the surrounding content shown alongside the interview.
I am not quite sure what right Ofcom thinks it has to challenge anything a foreign leader says. The President is fully entitled to his views and, whether Ofcom likes them or not, the public have a right to hear them and make their own judgement.
Interviews with foreign leaders are broadcast on all channels, and they often include incorrect statements and outrageous views – is the BBC, for example, now expected to dispute everything that Putin, Xi or von der Leyen tells them that sounds a bit dodgy?
Furthermore, it's the BBC of course which regularly reports propaganda from Hamas or Iran as if it were factual.
Was what Trump said controversial? Yes.
But the BBC has often broadcast equally controversial claims from the alarmist side of the climate debate.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
OFCOM decrees you are not allowed to believe that climate change and Net Zero is a SCAM.
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.”
Furthermore, it’s the BBC of course which regularly reports propaganda from Hamas or Iran as if it were factual.
‘regularly’? ‘Constantly’ is far more accurate and they even push things they know are not true. Then when caught out they give mealy-mouthed apologies like that snivelling turd Bowen did.
On the subject of Attenbollox, missing from his lies is his fake claim that walruses were jumping off cliffs because of climate change. Good people such as Dr Susan Crockford showed it was the polar bears chasing them.
“Hoax: intent to deceive or defraud”.
Lies and money.
Climate change/crisis/breakdown – judge accordingly.
One is an ‘approved’ outlet that is part of the establishment, and one is not it seems…
Ofcom shouldn’t be investigating anyone for claims being made about anything.
Who the hell do they think they are to decide what I can and cannot listen to? I can decide for myself thank you very much. I don’t need a technocrat commissar to filter information for me. I’m perfectly capable of making my own mind about the information I receive.
And yet many will say that we have freedom of speech in this country. Some of them are probably unaware of what OFCOM does, others are aware and approve of what they do. Something of a vicious circle – if you brainwash people, they will agree that further brainwashing is right and proper to prevent “misinformation” and “dangerous ideas”.
That would explain why people actually want someone else to decide what they can and cannot hear. It potentially avoids a lot of cognitive dissonance.
When people rage against things being said that they don’t like, why the hell do they care so much? Why not just tune out? The excuse is typically because it’s “dangerous” in some way. But really, more often than not it’s the cognitive dissonance hitting them.
Excellent work Mr Homewood.
We all know how OFCOM works and why it acts this way.
Come the revolution…
The dice have always been loaded. Ofcom has no place in discussions of science nor, more to the point, in how interviewees respond to questions.
It is a common interviewing technique to push the subjects into revealing their opinions to let viewers make a judgement about their stance.
I am an atheist and I believe that all religions are hoaxes; Christians believe in their god and Muslims likewise. Other religions worship multiple gods and yet more venerate physical objects. In my view man-made climate change is just another religion.
Does science have anything to do with the climate religion?
It did perhaps at one point in the dim and distant past, however now the money drives the outcomes…
A great article. Thank you.
A balanced view of climate change is now very, very important…particularly because of the cost of renewable energy and, consequently, electricity:
‘Renewable electricity generators have now enjoyed generous financial support for over twenty years without showing any significant progress towards independent economic viability. On the contrary, the requirement for such support seems to be rising. The public is surely entitled to ask when government will bring this extraordinary and insupportable level of subsidy to an end.’
Renewable Energy Foundation
and Ofcom should, must, be balanced…This is what ‘balance’ looks like:
‘If natural variability plays a larger role than currently assumed, if observational datasets contain unresolved biases, and if ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is lower, then the justification for the most aggressive net‑zero strategies becomes less clear.’
Climate Etc.
The latest research?
‘In the last 300 to 700 years, no precipitation pattern has emerged in Scandinavia, Asia, or Central Greece which can be linked to anthropogenic impacts or post-1950 CO2 increases (Stridbeck et al., 2026, Cai et al., 2026, Sakalis and Kastridis, 2025).’
WUWT