GB News, the UK’s newest TV media channel, has been broadcasting for several weeks, with mixed results so far. However, any news channel is to be welcomed if it can deliver a refreshing approach and attitude when compared with the sameness of the key incumbents BBC, SKY and ITV. GB News bills itself as centrist politically, but its declared war on woke perhaps needed refinement and may have damaged its brand unnecessarily. Its first few days’ viewing figures indicated a potential audience willing to give it a try, outperforming rivals, but, while that may have been encouraging, since then the rapid decline in audience has raised question marks over its appeal. Even if it improves on its offering enticing back those disappointed early viewers may prove a tough challenge.
WOKENESS AND FREE SPEECH
Its nascent days were not without incident. Leaving aside its production problems and unreliability, that significant corporations such as IKEA publicly announced that they were pulling advertising from the channel raised an uncertainty and bad publicity, forcing GB News to defend itself. Those corporations largely backtracked because the publicity turned against them, as they had been so easily persuaded into cancelling mode by an outfit called Stop Funding Hate (SFH): that is a story in itself.
SFH has been described as a “repulsive, monomaniacal and bullying organisation, which persecutes any media outlets that do not share its deluded view of the “ (Rod Liddle, Sunday Times). Other sources echo the sentiment. The campaign and the idea of stifling the new channel through an advertising blackballing was in itself attacked as an assault on freedom of speech. So, the corporations backtracked, having demonstrated the readiness of weak Boards of institutions to kowtow to social media threats, which perhaps is a seriously weak underbelly of the foundations of democracy which needs to find backbone. SFH sounds like an icon of cancel culture and is living persuasion that a channel like GB News, which openly defends free speech and condemns such culture, is a desirable alternative. But GB News’ anti-woke declaration possibly went too far, particularly as being “woke” in itself (when interpreted to mean aware of social injustice and inequality) is certainly not to be condemned but can be reasonably respected. The corruption of the use of the word “woke” now to refer to extremist intolerance of other views does the woke cause no favours but equally, by meaning to attack that group, GB News has also offended the genuinely caring majority who wish to narrow unfairness gaps.
GLITCHES GALORE
GB News suffered, and still suffers from, repeat technical failures, disappearance of sound, speech and sound not synchronised, breaking connections with outside reporters and interviewees, among other things. As a start-up, without the vast funding and experience of its main competitors, GB News is an underdog, perhaps deserving of some sympathy and a few breaks. But viewers have limited patience, and, unless the content is stunning enough to outweigh technical faults, are unlikely to build loyalty and so forgiveness readily. There was much reporting too of more than 300 complaints being made to Ofcom and seeking to call into question its compliance with the need for objectivity. But to date the regulator has declared no case to answer. That the lead presenter of BBC News, Andrew Neill, has absented himself for most of the Summer so soon after launch raises curiosity as to why, and speculation as to viability, and that remains to be clarified.
On the plus side, there are times when its format of debate between presenters and panels, and outside experts or “names” is more alluring than the BBC or SKY approach of turning news into drama, defaulting to interview with members of the public with the most negative take on life. Also, unlike others, it does not simply regurgitate all day the same footage and commentaries time after time. Its presenters often do not agree with each other and do not bathe in mutual adoration or congratulation. Its continual process of seeking to involve the public differentiates it. Is it excessively conservative, or right wing? Some would say so, but it does criticise UK Government seriously on various issues, and Boris Johnson is evidently not their favourite. However, they are openly supportive of the UK as a country and see nothing odd in flying the Great Britain flag: some would say that is nationalistic and so right wing, but for most countries in the world the flag is given respect and demonstrating it is normal and not regarded as right wing. The presenters largely do not treat any politicians, of whatever persuasion, with disdain, while not necessarily agreeing with them. There seems to be an effort made to tolerate and not insult other opinions, except extremist woke.
However, certain hosts on programmes can be too loud and the debate can become chaotic. Dan Wooton for example is probably too opinionated and sensationalist for some. Is he excessively judgemental? Perhaps. He seems to have no gear which contemplates soft or slow. And GB News fell into the “licking of the lips” mode at times, as did most news broadcasters, when it came to the Matt Hancock affair and his resignation. This gift of an irresistible old-fashioned scandal, almost farce, was not to be spurned. Perhaps that was a chance to differentiate which was lost.
WILL IT SURVIVE? COMPETITION SHOULD BENEFIT THE NATION
If GB News can find the right balance, which may take time, it perhaps is capable of offering a real alternative to other channels. At least it is pro the UK and wants the nation to succeed, accepting that, like it or not, the best has to be made of Brexit. Some doubt this channel’s ability to survive; if it can eliminate shoddy technical errors and establish consistency of quality, perhaps adjusting personnel where necessary, and so quickly, it can get a reputation for reliability and professionalism. Otherwise, its more famous presenters may become disillusioned with the vision, as unattainable, and concerned with the risk of being associated with failure, leading to “names” jumping ship, and so increasing the risk of drowning. But GB News should be given a chance to react to the feedback and win confidence. If it succeeds, perhaps the BBC for one, and maybe others too, will recognise its need to diversify in thought and attitude and bury groupthink, so improving its news offering. That would be a dividend which would benefit viewers in the UK. Good competition is so commonly the best way in a free society to drive change and betterment, in the interests of the people at large.
