by What if I told you that a major British institution is infecting young minds, reducing sperm count and killing children in the north of England? This shadowy organization, known as “Ofcom”, is known to use entertainment to anesthetize the masses, and it must be stopped before it is too late. I don’t have much proof for these claims, but recent developments suggest that I might still be able to make them freely on my own TV show.
Indeed, every pedlar of wild conspiracy theories will be encouraged by Ofcom’s decision to reject complaints about GB News presenter Neil Oliver linking the coronavirus vaccine to something called “turbo cancer”. The fact that there is no such thing as “turbo cancer” – Reuters fact-checking said the Canadian doctor who claimed it was linked to vaccines was being investigated for spreading false information – did not stop Ofcom from making a decision that Oliver’s demands did not exceed his own. rules. It appears that his freedom to express misleading or indeed offensive ideas altogether trumps Ofcom’s mandate to prevent harmful or offensive content.
Since this misjudgment, in which Ofcom essentially decided that the 70 complaints against Oliver’s rant on January 13 should not be fully investigated, comes after GB News has breached the rules five times since April 2022, and is still under investigation. for another 12 violations, why even bother writing about it? Misinformation about vaccines has real consequences, for example contributing to the return of measles in Britain. But this odd decision also helps to summarize where Ofcom is failing.
The organization faces a constant bombardment of extreme content from GB News, as well as general political winds. Lately he has put free speech above all else, and relied on a reductive, linear reading of the rules. As author Matthew Sweet has pointed out, conspiracy rhymes in mainstream outlets often do not fully spell out their implications, while at the same time using tropes and euphemisms commonly found in online chat rooms or on Telegram channels that use conspiracy theories. Understanding such links is crucial, especially now that Ofcom’s remit has become larger and more complex, having fought hard to be appointed as the formal regulator of online harm in the Online Safety Act. Recently online.
Ofcom deserves some sympathy: it has to police the line between free and harmful speech in a world of massive and global information flows. But amid the noise, it seems to rely too much on the belief that any intervention could have a chilling effect on creativity, especially on “other voices” than those of traditional public service broadcasters such as the BBC.
Ofcom decided not to “undertake an assessment” of complaints about Oliver’s GB News programme, and has not publicly explained its decision-making. However, his brief statement read: “In line with freedom of speech, our rules allow broadcasters to cover controversial themes and topics … We acknowledge that these brief comments are the personal views of the presenter and did not materially mislead the audience.”
It didn’t matter that Oliver often linked vaccines to people dying. Just a week before the January 13 hit, he claimed that “the elephant in the room when it comes to the adult conversation about sudden death is the suggestion of a temporal link between excess deaths and the rolling out of jobs”.
Ofcom, as a “known pollster”, seems to have decided that it should not be held to the same standards of truth and accuracy as a news programme, despite its prominence on a news channel. The code clause suggesting that a “journalist, commentator or academic with professional expertise or specialism” can express “opinions not necessarily mainstream” seems so open-ended that it inspired my own idea for conspiracy television anti-Ofcom. shown at the beginning of this column.
However, the cornerstone of the broadcasting code is that there should be adequate protection for people from content that may cause harm and offense. By their very nature, unproven claims about public health are damaging.
In a forthcoming essay in Political Quarterly, Ofcom’s former director of content policy, Jacquie Hughes, writes of the “lack of regulatory rigour” of newer non-public service channels such as GB News, particularly when compared to the treatment the BBC. , which is often slated for “perceptions of impartiality”. It’s hard not to see political factors at play here, despite Ofcom’s supposed independence. Michael Grade, the government-appointed chairman of Ofcom, has already offered his support to Laurence Fox against what he calls the “woke brigade”. Melanie Dawes leads an executive team that is ambitious for more powers, saying that “we are bound by broadcasting rules. prioritizing freedom of speech,” a statement that does not appear in the rules themselves.
Related: Laurence Fox mentions Ava Evans tops Ofcom’s complaints list for 2023
GB News shows little concern about Ofcom. Among the 12 investigations still to be carried out are five exposés presented by current Tory MPs, including two by Jacob Rees-Mogg. But this did not stop him persuading the Prime Minister to take his place in a presentation on the channel on Monday evening.
Television has been subject to statutory rules for the past century, when the world first realized the enormous power of being able to pump information into living rooms. When information first started being pumped onto much smaller screens, the panoramic view was considered a hindrance to full control and was rejected or considered too old-fashioned. Now one increasingly powerful regulator in the UK is set to police almost all information.
Ofcom finds itself in a challenging position in the face of savvy new operatives and politically motivated bad actors. But it is good to remember that the dangers of misinformation, such as pollution or disease, are often difficult to recognize until it is too late.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
