GB News / Talk TV

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ever watched Kay Burley?

I can't stand that woman.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Are you confusing TalkTV with GBNews?

Two separate organisations…

There is as both in title.

But to separate, the daily mail editor was on gb news for an hour talking up truss with no counter view present.

The others are all from talk tv.

Farage on gb news. JRM gb news. Nadine talk tv.

---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ever watched Kay Burley?

Yeah dont like her.

[1andrew1]

Good to see GB News cleaning up its act.

GB News presenter quits after channel tries to make him pay Ofcom fines

Mark Steyn could face sanction by media regulator after he cast doubt on safety of Covid vaccines

Steyn, who has been off-air since last year after suffering two heart attacks, told fans on his personal website that the station bosses initially insisted he could not return unless a defibrillator was fitted in the studio.

He said this was fixed with a call to “Defibrillators R Us”, only for Angelos Frangopoulos, GB News’s chief executive, to demand Steyn agree to personally cover the costs of dealing with Ofcom and paying any fines for breaches of the broadcasting code. This is a highly unusual situation given the fines are the legal responsibility of the broadcast licence holder, not the individual presenter.

Steyn, who was employed on a freelance basis, said his response was that “you may be a homicidal maniac intent on bringing on a third fatal heart attack but you’ll have to do better than this”.

Steyn said the proposal would be untenable. “I’m on the hook for Ofcom fines but I don’t have any say in our defence against an Ofcom complaint – that’s all done by GB News. Ofcom’s bitch, as I call the compliance officer, will be making the weedy defence to Ofcom and then I’m the one who has to pay the £40,000 fine,” he added.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ay-ofcom-fines
See also https://order-order.com/2023/02/06/m...r-ofcom-fines/

[Sephiroth]

A great pity. Also OFCOM are now the thought police. Is this the UK?

Yes, and OFCOM has regulated television for years. You can't broadcast whatever you want.

That said it's the channel not the person whose liable.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes, and OFCOM has regulated television for years. You can't broadcast whatever you want.

That said it's the channel not the person whose liable.

But the regulation should not be directed at opinion other than inflammatory stuff - you know, incentive to violence etc. It is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of drugs that have not gone through the normal proving cycle and there is enough evidence that some people react adversely to the MRNA drugs. Only wider tests and stats would enable medical statisticians to examine medical profiles of the reactive people and that hasn't happened yet.

For the record, I've had 5 shots and I'll go for an annual booster willingly. My wife has had 4 shots and believes Mark Steyn.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But the regulation should not be directed at opinion other than inflammatory stuff - you know, incentive to violence etc. It is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of drugs that have not gone through the normal proving cycle and there is enough evidence that some people react adversely to the MRNA drugs. Only wider tests and stats would enable medical statisticians to examine medical profiles of the reactive people and that hasn't happened yet.

For the record, I've had 5 shots and I'll go for an annual booster willingly. My wife has had 4 shots and believes Mark Steyn.

It's not about opinion but about stating as a fact that having the extra vaccine dose was killing Britons and that there was a media silence on the issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...booster-claims

I think his other Ofcom complaint was along similar lines.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's not about opinion but about stating as a fact that having the extra vaccine dose was killing Britons and that there was a media silence on the issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...booster-claims

I think his other Ofcom complaint was along similar lines.

I think the MRNA drug has been killing Britons. It's a consequence of rushing the drug into dispensation.

The authorisation is temporary. https://www.gov.uk/government/public...vid-19-vaccine

This temporary Authorisation under Regulation 174 permits the supply of identified COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 batches, based on the safety, quality and efficacy data submitted by Pfizer/BioNTech to MHRA in the period from 1 October to 2 December 2020;

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I think the MRNA drug has been killing Britons. It's a consequence of rushing the drug into dispensation.

The authorisation is temporary. https://www.gov.uk/government/public...vid-19-vaccine

That's not evidence of:
- the drug killing Britons.
- a link between deaths and speed of approval.
which are the controversial aspects.

The speed of approval is widely known.

But we digress.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But the regulation should not be directed at opinion other than inflammatory stuff - you know, incentive to violence etc. It is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of drugs that have not gone through the normal proving cycle and there is enough evidence that some people react adversely to the MRNA drugs. Only wider tests and stats would enable medical statisticians to examine medical profiles of the reactive people and that hasn't happened yet.

For the record, I've had 5 shots and I'll go for an annual booster willingly. My wife has had 4 shots and believes Mark Steyn.

I haven’t digressed. The approval was necessarily rushed but is temporary precisely because the normal criteria for approval could not be met.

There is little doubt in my mind that certain people, with certain unspecified characteristics have experienced common symptoms after the booster jab. It is not wrong to voice concerns on a public platform. There should be no thought police in this sort of case.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I haven’t digressed. The approval was necessarily rushed but is temporary precisely because the normal criteria for approval could not be met.

There is little doubt in my mind that certain people, with certain unspecified characteristics have experienced common symptoms after the booster jab. It is not wrong to voice concerns on a public platform. There should be no thought police in this sort of case.

OFCOM and GB News think differently. The presenter told lies to push up his viewing figures. It's the Daily Sport of tv.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But the regulation should not be directed at opinion other than inflammatory stuff -

Then your beef isn’t with Ofcom but with the very long-standing legislative principles that enable and regulate broadcasting in the UK. Print media is fair game for politically motivated ownership/campaigning; broadcast media is not. Nowhere do the rules restrict their sanctions only to inflammatory opinion-sharing. TV and radio current affairs output is required to be balanced. That means you can get Andrew Neil to host a show in which Ed Balls and George Osborne give their opinions at the same time, or you could have him forensically interview Rishi Sunak one week and Keir Starmer the next; you can even allow him to offer his perspective on the major events of the week, provided that in the round he isn’t obviously favouring one view over another.

What you can’t do is allow a presenter on a channel that has the word ‘news’ in its name to go on a rant in which they attach vaccine side effect statistics to insinuations of a deep state conspiracy, sans evidence. Giving strongly opinionated individuals their own show and making it look like a platform for their opinions is inherently likely to draw Ofcom’s attention. The Tucker Carlson approach to TV ‘news’ simply isn’t allowed in the UK and never has been. GBN is on a sticky wicket if it thinks it can push its output in that direction.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Then your beef isn’t with Ofcom but with the very long-standing legislative principles that enable and regulate broadcasting in the UK. Print media is fair game for politically motivated ownership/campaigning; broadcast media is not. Nowhere do the rules restrict their sanctions only to inflammatory opinion-sharing. TV and radio current affairs output is required to be balanced. That means you can get Andrew Neil to host a show in which Ed Balls and George Osborne give their opinions at the same time, or you could have him forensically interview Rishi Sunak one week and Keir Starmer the next; you can even allow him to offer his perspective on the major events of the week, provided that in the round he isn’t obviously favouring one view over another.

What you can’t do is allow a presenter on a channel that has the word ‘news’ in its name to go on a rant in which they attach vaccine side effect statistics to insinuations of a deep state conspiracy, sans evidence. Giving strongly opinionated individuals their own show and making it look like a platform for their opinions is inherently likely to draw Ofcom’s attention. The Tucker Carlson approach to TV ‘news’ simply isn’t allowed in the UK and never has been. GBN is on a sticky wicket if it thinks it can push its output in that direction.

I agree with most of what you're saying but I thought this part of the article was interesting in terms of political balance.

Ahead of GB News’ launch last year there had been questions about how Ofcom would regulate a television news channel that was overtly political in its outlook. British broadcasting law requires a commitment to “due impartiality”, which means that an audience must be exposed to alternative points of view. However, a channel can still take a strong editorial line – and does not have to give equal airtime to both sides of a debate.

At first GB News regularly booked left-leaning guests for discussions to ensure they could meet this due impartiality standard. But staff at the station said they did this less once they realised Ofcom was not going to press on the issue.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I agree with most of what you're saying but I thought this part of the article was interesting in terms of political balance.

The rules are what they are. Ofcom is simply trying to be as light-touch as it can so it avoids accusations of censorship. GBN correctly deduced that as long as its output is balanced overall, it is less likely to get in trouble if the opinions expressed in any one programme are occasionally a little on the edge. As I said earlier, it’s perfectly standard for a TV news programme to get an interview with a senior front bench politician without also interviewing their opposite number on the same show. That would be impractical most of the time. Ofcom knows this and as long as the channel maintains overall balance they’re happy.

However its senior executives lack skill and experience (of the kind the BBC and ITN have in spades) and in time have somehow come to think they can get away with just about anything. But they can’t. And now, having awakened the Ofcom kraken, they might discover that giving occasional airtime to a few lefty gobshytes will no longer give them a free pass to let the likes of Mark Steyn say whatever they like.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I think the MRNA drug has been killing Britons. It's a consequence of rushing the drug into dispensation.

The authorisation is temporary. https://www.gov.uk/government/public...vid-19-vaccine

From the top of your link.

Stock authorised under Regulation 174 is no longer in use. Please see here for latest product information.

Here is the full approval…

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...pfizerbiontech