For years, Britain’s broadcasting system was regarded as one of the few in the world that at least attempted to separate news from naked political propaganda. That credibility is now being shredded in plain sight, and much of the blame lies with Ofcom.
The regulator’s decision to allow GB News to operate as a licensed news broadcaster has become one of the most damaging regulatory failures in modern British media history. What was sold to the public as a fresh alternative voice has instead evolved into a permanent culture-war platform where political activism, outrage theatre and ideological campaigning are routinely disguised as journalism.
Former Sky News political editor Adam Boulton is absolutely right to say Ofcom failed in its duty. The issue is not simply whether one agrees or disagrees with GB News politically. Democracies survive disagreement. What they cannot survive is the collapse of trusted standards in public information.
Britain historically imposed stricter impartiality rules on television because broadcasting carries enormous influence. Unlike newspapers, television enters millions of homes carrying an implied authority. The understanding was simple: if you are granted a broadcast licence using public airwaves, you accept obligations that go beyond partisan campaigning.
GB News has systematically blurred those boundaries from the moment it launched.
The channel has filled its schedule with what Boulton correctly called “presenticians” — elected politicians or political activists masquerading as neutral broadcasters. The presence of figures tied to Reform UK, including Nigel Farage, demonstrates how absurd the situation has become. A serving political figure with financial interests in the broadcaster is simultaneously allowed to shape supposedly regulated news output. In any serious democracy, alarm bells would be deafening.
Instead, Ofcom appears paralysed by cowardice and contradiction.
Again and again, the regulator hides behind the vague phrase “due impartiality” while pretending that balance can be achieved simply by occasionally inviting someone with an opposing opinion onto a panel. But this misses the point entirely. Propaganda does not become impartial because somebody rolls their eyes in disagreement for thirty seconds between monologues.
The entire editorial tone of GB News is designed to inflame grievance, amplify division and frame politics through a permanently ideological lens. It imports the worst elements of America’s hyper-partisan cable culture into a country that once prided itself on higher broadcasting standards.
Ofcom’s defenders insist that “freedom of expression” must be protected. But this argument is deeply dishonest. Freedom of speech does not mean entitlement to a state-regulated broadcasting licence. Nobody is stopping GB News figures from expressing their opinions online, in newspapers, on podcasts or at political rallies. The question is whether a broadcaster operating under UK news regulations should be permitted to behave like a permanent political campaign machine.
Ofcom’s refusal to confront that question has weakened trust across the entire media landscape.
Worse still, the regulator has helped create a dangerous double standard. Traditional broadcasters such as BBC, ITV and Sky News remain under constant scrutiny over balance and language, while GB News repeatedly pushes boundaries knowing the consequences are usually weak, delayed or meaningless.
This has encouraged a race to the bottom. Outrage attracts clicks. Anger attracts audiences. Manufactured cultural conflict generates attention far more effectively than serious journalism. By tolerating GB News’s model, Ofcom has effectively incentivised the corrosion of factual broadcasting itself.
Some will argue the audience figures are too small to matter. That is dangerously complacent. Toxic political influence is not measured solely in ratings. Small but highly motivated media ecosystems can radically distort national debate, especially when amplified through social media and sympathetic political networks.
The deeper issue is institutional failure. Regulators exist precisely to prevent democratic norms being hollowed out by commercial and ideological pressure. Ofcom was supposed to protect broadcasting standards before they collapsed, not issue carefully worded statements after the damage was already done.
Adam Boulton is also likely correct that it is now “too late”. Once a highly partisan broadcaster becomes embedded in political culture, removing its licence risks creating martyrdom narratives about censorship and elite suppression. Ofcom’s weakness early on may have made decisive action impossible later.
That is the true scandal here.
Britain did not stumble accidentally into this situation. The regulator opened the door, ignored repeated warning signs, and now appears unwilling to admit the consequences of its own failure.
