At best, the media watchdog appears weak, failing to uphold impartiality by not cracking down on broadcasters like GB News. At worst, Ofcom could be seen as a political organisation, a “biased referee,” as former BBC reporter Robin Aitken described it.
“Being an MP is a huge privilege and a full-time job,” said Jon Trickett during Ed Miliband’s crackdown on MPs with high-paying second jobs in 2013. Doubts though remain on whether Nigel Farage, after finally securing a seat in Parliament on his eighth attempt, will share similar enthusiasm and commitment. Representing Clacton-on-Sea, one of the most deprived towns in England, requires effective and committed advocacy, but rather than dedicating himself fully to his constituents’ pressing needs, Farage is returning to GB News.
After cancelling his show on the right-wing channel to focus on election campaigning, the Reform UK leader will now resume broadcasting from the station’s studios in Westminster three times a week. The move raises concerns about Farage’s commitment to his £91,000 plus expenses job as an MP. Unfortunately, we would expect nothing less from the Brexit firebrand, but the fact that MPs are still able to take on lucrative second jobs, despite long-standing opposition, is surely unacceptable.
But perhaps even more concerning, is how Ofcom is permitting Farage’s return to the airwaves, especially since the watchdog has repeatedly found GB News to violate impartiality rules. Ahead of the general election, Ofcom issued a warning to broadcasters about using politicians as presenters. While politicians are allowed to host current affairs programmes, they are not permitted to act as newsreaders.
This rule has allowed several sitting MPs to present on GB News, which has frequently seen the broadcaster land in trouble with Ofcom. In March, the media regulator ruled that five episodes of programmes hosted by then-serving Tory MPs broke its rules. The investigation found that Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey, and Philip Davies violated rules about politicians fronting news coverage. Ofcom stated that during the programmes, the “host politicians acted as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters in sequences which clearly constituted news – including reporting breaking news events – without exceptional justification.”
In merely giving GB News a slap on the wrist, discontent towards the regulator is growing. Stewart Purvis, a former Ofcom content and standards executive, noted that some believe GB News has been given too much leniency. “There are people, certainly at a non-executive level, who are deeply troubled about where they have got to,” Purvis told the entertainment news website Deadline.
At best, the media watchdog appears weak, failing to uphold impartiality by not cracking down on broadcasters like GB News. At worst, Ofcom could be seen as a political organisation, a “biased referee,” as Robin Aitken, a former BBC reporter described it. It would not be the first time a supposedly neutral, non-political British institution has become politicised, filled with individuals apparently motivated by partisan agendas for political gain.
The Paul Dacre appointment controversy
In 2021, concerns were raised about the transparency of the recruitment process for Ofcom appointments, when former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre was poised to run as the watchdog’s next chair. The prospect of a man who opposed state regulation, and had criticised the BBC, accusing it of ‘cultural Marxism,’ regulating its output, naturally sparked concerns. Dacre failed his first attempt at landing the job, as the interview panel decided that he did not meet the required criteria. But ministers cleared the way for him to be given another shot, even tweaking the job description in favour of a more confrontational candidate. An investigation by the Guardian found that a lobbyist at a company with close connections to the Conservative party was chosen to help select which candidates should be approved. Michael Prescott, a former political editor of the Sunday Times and senior executive at Hanover Communications, founded by John Major’s former director of communications, was made senior external interviewer. Following the revelation, Dacre announced he would not proceed with the application again, despite encouragement to do so from senior government members.
The Scottish and Welsh governments raised concerns about Downing Street’s interference in the recruitment of Ofcom’s next chair, warning that it could “adversely affect the standing of the public service broadcasting system.” In 2022, former BBC chair Michael Grade was confirmed as Ofcom chair, despite warnings from MPs that he lacked knowledge about social media and online safety. A report by the digital, culture, media, and sport committee, also voiced alarm about the department’s commitment to diversity, noting that the nine-person shortlist for the Ofcom chair contained only three women, one candidate who identified as minority ethnic, and one candidate with a declared disability.
The controversial appointment of the watchdog’s chair led to calls for scrutiny of Ofcom itself. But instead of reform, Ofcom has regularly faced censure over a lack of impartiality and weakness, with Nigel Farage’s return as a GB News host being just one of many such criticisms.
Ofcom’s ‘selective’ defence of free speech
In 2021, members of the Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller (GRT) community accused Ofcom of institutional racism over its decision to clear Channel 4’s documentary “The Truth About Traveller Crime.” Critics noted that the programme attributed high crime rates to Gypsy and Traveller sites, implying there was a link. Despite reports of increased hate speech and hate crimes against the GRT community following the broadcast, Ofcom concluded that the documentary did not breach the broadcasting code, citing “the right to freedom of expression.”
Around the same time, the media regulator found that comments made by former Good Morning presenter Piers Morgan about Meghan Markle’s mental health were ‘potentially harmful or offensive,’ but permissible because of freedom of expression. Despite attracting 50,000 complaints, Ofcom’s clearance of Piers Morgan was celebrated by the right as a victory for free speech. ‘MEG-A VICTORY Piers Morgan WINS Ofcom complaint over Meghan Markle row that saw him quit GMB in victory for free speech,’ headlined the Sun.
But the watchdog’s defence of free speech in the case of Piers Morgan was inconsistent with its review of Emily Maitlis’ comments on Dominic Cummings on BBC Newsnight that ‘[news] presenters should ensure they do not inadvertently give the impression of setting out personal opinions or views.’
As Tribune Magazine noted in an op-ed about the regulator, Ofcom’s defence of free speech “seems increasingly selective,” suggesting it has surrendered to the right’s manufactured culture war.
‘Foxification’ of UK media
The media regulator’s apparent inability to adequately regulate GB News, where presenters, including some sitting MPs, frequently express personal opinions skewed markedly to the right, amplifies concerns about the growing ‘Foxification’ of UK media. Historically, Britain has required broadcasters to follow “due impartiality” guidelines set and enforced by Ofcom to prevent the kind of partisanship common in US media. But with the rise of opinion-driven channels like GB News and TalkTV, the resulting biased opinions, subsequent investigations, and lack of censure, indicate that Britain’s media regulator is failing. As a result, the nation’s broadcasting landscape increasingly resembles a smaller version of America’s.
The Charity Commission
The incompetence of UK regulatory institutions, where appointments, alarmingly, tend to favour the right, is not limited to Ofcom. A complaint about the Charity Commission’s (CC) alleged failure to investigate campaigning by the climate sceptic think-tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), has remained unresolved for years. The complaint, lodged in October 2022 by MPs Layla Moran, Clive Lewis, and Caroline Lucas, and supported by the Good Law Project, argued that the GWPF should be stripped of its charitable status, claiming it operates more as a lobbying group than a charity. The MPs accused the GWPF of using charitable funds to support one-sided research and its subsidiary, Net Zero Watch, which campaigns against climate policies. Despite multiple inquiries, the Charity Commission has only provided preliminary updates without concluding its investigation, leading to accusations of an unlawful delay that distorts public debate on climate issues.
The leadership of the commission has also come under scrutiny. Its chair, Orlando Fraser, has strong connections to the Conservative Party, having stood as a Tory candidate in 2005 and later as an advisor to the party on voluntary sector issues. Labour accused the government of “looking after their own” and ignoring due process in favour of another Conservative supporter. The charity sector’s response was tepid, with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations voicing disappointment over the lack of political independence in the appointment.
Like Ofcom, the Charity Commission was drawn into a ‘culture war’ political controversy, when Oliver Dowden, as culture secretary, suggested that the commission’s next chair should pursue charities involved in “woke” and “political” activities. The Good Law Project launched a legal challenge against the government’s apparent attempt to influence the commission’s regulatory agenda against causes perceived as ‘woke.’
There are other instances of Conservative activists being positioned to lead Britain’s supposedly non-partisan institutions. Former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore, known for his anti-BBC, anti–abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro–hunting, climate-sceptic, and pro-Israel views, was considered for the director-general post at the BBC. But like Paul Dacre, Moore withdrew from the race, citing ‘personal reasons.’
The positioning of figures with strong Conservative connections to lead supposedly neutral institutions fuels speculation of bias. The controversies surrounding the appointments of Ofcom’s leadership, and similar issues within other regulatory bodies like the Charity Commission, point to a pattern of politicisation and regulatory capture. Nigel Farage’s return to GB News exemplifies these concerns. His return to broadcasting, amid questions about his commitment to his constituents, highlights a significant conflict of interest that Ofcom seems unable or unwilling to adequately address. Without reform, the UK’s media risks becoming as divisive and partisan as US media, undermining the democratic debate that relies on a well-informed and balanced media. Let’s hope the new culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, is committed to restoring the impartiality and effectiveness of the body meant to monitor media neutrality and uphold Britain’s once-enviable broadcasting standards.
Right-Wing Media Watch – Daily Mail misleads TikTok with alleged Biden bloopers
TikTok is becoming a force to be reckoned with for news consumption. In just three years, the number of adults who regularly get their news from TikTok has more than quadrupled, from 3 percent in 2020 to 14 percent in 2023. Especially popular among young people, the video-sharing app is now the most used single source of news for teenagers in the UK.
More and more publishers are jumping on the TikTok bandwagon and none more so than the Daily Mail. Their penchant for sensationalist headlines and gossipy stories makes the perfect content for a platform that relies on simplistic, easily consumable entertainment, prioritising virality over substance or quality. In January, the DailyMail surpassed 10 million followers across its TikTok accounts and had gained more than five billion views over the year.
As questions increasingly surface about the US president’s mental ability at 81, TikTok has been ablaze with videos purportedly proving that Biden is not up to the job. Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail has been leading the charge, attracting huge viewing numbers with clips showing the President looking dazed, fragile, or awkward. The content can be misleading, selectively edited to distort the truth in a deliberate attempt to underscore one of the President’s key liabilities, his age.
The Mail’s clip of Biden appearing bewildered and lost at the G7 Summit, seemingly waving at nobody, as other leaders tried to get his attention, racked up almost 4 million views. However, as the editors of FWIW, a media company that tracks the internet’s influence on politics, pointed out, the viral clip was intentionally misleading.
“They’ve [Daily Mail] racked up some huge numbers showing President Biden stumbling over his words or simply looking awkward. And of course, they never seem to let the truth of what was actually happening in these videos get in the way of a good story,” write Josh Klemons and Lucy Ritzmann.
When the camera angle shifts slightly, it reveals that Biden was actually watching skydivers descend onto the field. Yet when the full, truthful account of the incident was shared by fact-checkers PolitiFact, it attracted a mere 7,000 views, less than 0.2 percent of the Daily Mail’s post.
This deliberate manipulation of unregulated content that is eagerly being consumed by millions, does not bode well for the coming election – or its aftermath. As they say, why let the truth get in the way of a good TikTok?
Woke bashing of the week – Right-wing meltdown over TfL’s ‘diversity and inclusion’ budget
You’d think that after her disastrous fear-mongering campaign against Sadiq Khan in the London mayoral elections, where she spread a bogus ‘pay-per-mile’ policy, Susan Hall would be hiding under the biggest rock she could find. But no, not the former Conservative mayoral candidate, who can’t seem to let go of her crusade against the London mayor.
Hall’s latest gripe is over what she describes as “eye-watering” sums being spent on Transport for London’s (TfL) diversity and inclusion training. TfL, which oversees the capital’s transport network and is chaired by Sadiq Khan, is proudly committed to, in its own words, “building an inclusive workplace so that we represent the diversity of London.” As such, the organisation has allocated £2.5m for equality and inclusion training.
We might have remained unaware of TfL’s plans to enhance workplace diversity, – efforts that are now almost standard in modern organisations due to the productivity and well-being benefits of having a more diverse workforce – if it wasn’t for the meltdown in the Sun and GB News. These right-wing outlets were the only major news sources to report the story, and they didn’t hold back.
‘Training fury: Woke Transport for London chiefs looking to spend up to £2.5m on equality and inclusion training,’ barked the Sun. The article dramatically reports that Tube chiefs have issued a contract tender for a firm to deliver courses that “help TfL address inequalities.” Unsurprisingly, they called on Susan Hall for a quote, given the Murdoch tabloid shares her commitment to scrapping ULEZ. The article delights in informing how the former Tory mayoral candidate “blasted the Labour mayor for the ‘eye-watering’ sum while fleecing motorists in the hated ULEZ scheme.”
“When people in real hardship are waiting for new trams and trains, and having to pay to drive to work, I am incensed this is where TfL’s money is going,” Hall told the Sun.
The piece also targets the “leftie city chief” after cab drivers in the capital were warned they could face penalties for flying an England flag on their cars. The decision not to allow England flags to be flapping about on taxis for weeks during the Euros, sent the right wing into its own flap, with Nigel Farage accusing Sadiq Khan of “hating England.” TfL maintained that the rule was purely about safety and ensuring uniformity of what is displayed on licensed vehicles, but the right was quick to brand the organisation as “woke.”
While Susan Hall continues her one-woman war against inclusion, TfL can at least take comfort in knowing they’re making London a more welcoming place – one eye-watering training session at a time.
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That’s why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward’s work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
