GBNews wins awards
Discussion
anonymoususer said:
It;'s a bad day for broadcasting. Dan was one of the most principled, courageous , brave and articulate presenters of this era.
Truly a titan of the medium, the heir to Richard Dimbleby, Robin Day and Alvar Lidell. Dan’s gravitas, sincerity, depth of knowledge and all round professionalism will be an incalculable loss to the nation.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-6848...
“Rupert Murdoch's Talk TV network is to cease broadcasting as a traditional television channel in the summer and move solely online.
The network launched in 2022 but has struggled to attract viewers on its linear platform”
As in, failed to attract any viewers.
Didnt manage to attract enough Far Right conspiracy theory ‘cry baby ‘ loons to pay the bills.
Trusted Regulated Media 1
Talk TV 0
“Rupert Murdoch's Talk TV network is to cease broadcasting as a traditional television channel in the summer and move solely online.
The network launched in 2022 but has struggled to attract viewers on its linear platform”
As in, failed to attract any viewers.
Didnt manage to attract enough Far Right conspiracy theory ‘cry baby ‘ loons to pay the bills.
Trusted Regulated Media 1
Talk TV 0
Edited by James6112 on Tuesday 5th March 20:50
I had to laugh at his pathetic "Ofcommunist censors" parting jibe.
Fact is, mate, you broke the rules. That's not censorship; it's falling short of the fairly low standards that Ofcom sets all broadcasters.
It's like driving down a residential street at 100mph and then when you get booked for speeding saying that the Police are the Stasi for censoring your "need for speed" and your freedom to drive like a dick.
Fact is, mate, you broke the rules. That's not censorship; it's falling short of the fairly low standards that Ofcom sets all broadcasters.
It's like driving down a residential street at 100mph and then when you get booked for speeding saying that the Police are the Stasi for censoring your "need for speed" and your freedom to drive like a dick.
andyeds1234 said:
Electro1980 said:
f
king hell. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so corrosive. It was ok when conspiracy looms were sat in box rooms and basements, but now they are listened too by people.
A machine used to knit jumpers for conspiracists?king hell. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so corrosive. It was ok when conspiracy looms were sat in box rooms and basements, but now they are listened too by people. 
Silvanus said:
andyeds1234 said:
Electro1980 said:
fking hell. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so corrosive. It was ok when conspiracy looms were sat in box rooms and basements, but now they are listened too by people.
A machine used to knit jumpers for conspiracists?king hell. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so corrosive. It was ok when conspiracy looms were sat in box rooms and basements, but now they are listened too by people. 
Is there not a tax law that says that a company cannot continuously make a loss, as this means they are taking (in the form of tax incentives), but not giving (in the form of corporation tax)?
I'm pretty sure that my accountant said that I had to declare a profit in year three, or HMRC would start getting nosey.
I'm pretty sure that my accountant said that I had to declare a profit in year three, or HMRC would start getting nosey.
pingu393 said:
Is there not a tax law that says that a company cannot continuously make a loss, as this means they are taking (in the form of tax incentives), but not giving (in the form of corporation tax)?
I'm pretty sure that my accountant said that I had to declare a profit in year three, or HMRC would start getting nosey.
No law that I'm aware of.I'm pretty sure that my accountant said that I had to declare a profit in year three, or HMRC would start getting nosey.
No need to as the markets usually sorts that kind of thing out. Eventually whoever is funding them gets sick of writing an ever increasing cheque each year.
It does affect the ways you can conduct business, such as whether you can get loans and financing (even cash rich businesss will often put large purchases though as leases for the tax benefits)
HMRC might get curious as to where the money to keep operating comes from but as long as that is legit theres no issue.
Edited by captain_cynic on Wednesday 6th March 10:10
Ofcom says GB News broke impartiality rules by using Tory MPs as news presenters - but issues warning, not sanctions
Ofcom has ruled today that GB News broke impartiality rules on five occasions by using Tory MPs as news presenters.
But it has not imposed sanctions on the broadaster. It says these count as first offence, and that there may be sanctions if it happens again.
Ofcom criticised two episodes of a programme presented by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, and three episodes of a programme presented by Esther McVey, the so-called “minister for common sense” in the Cabinet Office and her husband, the Tory MP Philip Davies.
In a statement it says:
Under the Broadcasting Code, news, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. Additionally, a politician cannot be a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter unless, exceptionally, there is editorial justification.
In line with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have editorial freedom to offer audiences a wide range of programme formats, including using politicians to present current affairs or other non-news programmes. Politicians may also appear in broadcast news content as an interviewee or any other type of guest.
Individual programmes can also feature a mix of news and non-news content and move between the two genres. If, however, a licensee chooses to use a politician as a presenter in a programme containing both news and current affairs content, it must take steps to ensure they do not act as a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter in that programme.
After careful consideration of the facts in each case – including forensic analysis of the content and detailed representations from GB News – we found that two episodes of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State of the Nation, two episodes of Friday Morning with Esther and Phil, and one episode of Saturday Morning with Esther and Phil, broadcast during May and June 2023, failed to comply with Rules 5.1 and 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code.
All five programmes in question contained a mix of news and current affairs content. We found that host politicians acted as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters in sequences which clearly constituted news – including reporting breaking news events – without exceptional justification. News was, therefore, not presented with due impartiality.
Section 5.1 of the code says: “News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.” And second 5.3 says: “No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.”
Ofcom says that these are GB News’ first breaches of these rules. If there are further breaches, the broadcaster may face sanctions, it says.
These are the first breaches of Rules 5.1 and 5.3 recorded against GB News. Since opening these investigations, there has only been one further programme which has raised issues warranting investigation under these rules. We are clear, however, that GB News is put on notice that any repeated breaches of Rules 5.1 and 5.3 may result in the imposition of a statutory sanction.
Ofcom has ruled today that GB News broke impartiality rules on five occasions by using Tory MPs as news presenters.
But it has not imposed sanctions on the broadaster. It says these count as first offence, and that there may be sanctions if it happens again.
Ofcom criticised two episodes of a programme presented by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, and three episodes of a programme presented by Esther McVey, the so-called “minister for common sense” in the Cabinet Office and her husband, the Tory MP Philip Davies.
In a statement it says:
Under the Broadcasting Code, news, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. Additionally, a politician cannot be a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter unless, exceptionally, there is editorial justification.
In line with the right to freedom of expression, broadcasters have editorial freedom to offer audiences a wide range of programme formats, including using politicians to present current affairs or other non-news programmes. Politicians may also appear in broadcast news content as an interviewee or any other type of guest.
Individual programmes can also feature a mix of news and non-news content and move between the two genres. If, however, a licensee chooses to use a politician as a presenter in a programme containing both news and current affairs content, it must take steps to ensure they do not act as a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter in that programme.
After careful consideration of the facts in each case – including forensic analysis of the content and detailed representations from GB News – we found that two episodes of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s State of the Nation, two episodes of Friday Morning with Esther and Phil, and one episode of Saturday Morning with Esther and Phil, broadcast during May and June 2023, failed to comply with Rules 5.1 and 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code.
All five programmes in question contained a mix of news and current affairs content. We found that host politicians acted as newsreaders, news interviewers or news reporters in sequences which clearly constituted news – including reporting breaking news events – without exceptional justification. News was, therefore, not presented with due impartiality.
Section 5.1 of the code says: “News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.” And second 5.3 says: “No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.”
Ofcom says that these are GB News’ first breaches of these rules. If there are further breaches, the broadcaster may face sanctions, it says.
These are the first breaches of Rules 5.1 and 5.3 recorded against GB News. Since opening these investigations, there has only been one further programme which has raised issues warranting investigation under these rules. We are clear, however, that GB News is put on notice that any repeated breaches of Rules 5.1 and 5.3 may result in the imposition of a statutory sanction.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff