And the BBC isn’t the only one with a Charter. GB News - the self-styled “People’s Channel” has its own Editorial Charter. It deliberately avoids some of the precise language used in the Ofcom Brodcasting Code, but does set out key values, which I have added my own emphasis to :

We celebrate civil debate and thoughtful dialogue, where understanding grows and bridges are built. We discuss and debate the issues, the ideas and not the person.

We reject propaganda and refuse to be swayed by partisan agendas.

In a world of growing noise and division, we offer a platform where all voices are heard and every perspective is valued.

we champion the freedom to speak, to think and to act, but always with a deep sense of responsibility.

These are bold claims. This week, the would-be Prime Minister Andy Burnham set out his vision for the UK’s political future. It seemed like a good opportunity to put GB News’ Editorial Charter to the test.

I set out to measure the coverage around Andy Burnham from around 7am on Monday to 2pm, after he’d done his speech. To do this I looked at posts on X from the GB News account. Although social media content isn’t regulated by Ofcom, the content offers an insight into the tone and mood of the Channel as a whole. It would also provide data by which to measure the GB News Editorial Charter.

I counted 40 posts on X featuring Andy Burnham.

2 could be considered positive towards Burnham.

15 could be considered as neutral - often involving GB News’ own correspondents explaining Burnham’s vision, and several posts in rapid succession during Burnham’s speech, which was carried live on the Channel.

23 could be considered as negative towards Burnham - this included at least four posts around comments made by Reform’s Robert Jenrick, three reflecting the views of Conservative Mel Stride and two from Kemi Badenoch.

It’s probably fair to say that Andy Burnham’s speech was short on substance; there were no tangible policies that we could take away from it. Yet the tone and language used by GB News in its posts on X would appear to be debating the person. Later in the day, some GB News presenters delivered scathing and sneering monologues attacking Burnham, as they have repeatedly done with Keir Starmer.

Based on the number of anti-Burnham posts over a seven hour period, it’s also hard to see how GB News ensures that “all voices are heard and every perspective is valued.” The numbers are weighted heavily against him. Anecdotally, Reform UK MP Lee Anderson hosts a Friday night show on GB News - set in a pub - where his “balanced” viewpoint is literally called “Lefty In The Corner”, often featuring a Labour supporter in a diminished, condescending position.

Of course, GB News fiercely “rejects propaganda” and refuses to be “swayed by partisan agendas”. I have yet to see evidence of anything approaching the negativity displayed against Andy Burnham applied to big speeches by Nigel Farage, or even Kemi Badenoch.

On X, GB News’ Political Editor Christopher Hope frequently moans that Labour ministers won’t appear on the Channel. It’s hardly surprising given the way it behaves.

My analysis here is just a snapshot, of course. However, far more esteemed voices agree that GB News frequently fails in its basic editorial responsibilities. Journalist Alan Rusbridger brought together expert witneses to watch some of its main output. The results were not flattering :

They found numerous glaring breaches of impartiality; a widespread disregard for accuracy; a predominant framing of news in ways that overlap with Reform’s political agenda; a systemic use of Reform politicians, candidates and supporters; and an overwhelmingly right wing bias in choice of guests and issues.

You can read the full investigation by The New World here.

The New World team submitted their findings to the Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy. A couple of months afterwards Ofcom announced an investigation into a repeat showing on Bev Turner’s GB News interview with Donald Trump. The main concerns was that Turner had not challenged Trump on factually inaccurate claims. Though the first broadcast included a panel discussion with opposing views, the repeated version on Dawn Neesom’s show did not.

Yet few observers believe anything will change. In 2024, GB News broadcast a “People’s Forum” with the then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Even though the General Election wasn’t called until later that year, it was clearly seen as an opening salvo for the campaign. GB News gave no other political leaders the same platform and were fined £100,000 by Ofcom. However, the regulator held back on imposing the penalty when GB News brought a series of unrelated legal challenges. Many still wonder what is the point of a regulator that won’t carry out its duties.

GB News consistently argues that - at least on air - it features a range of views. Yet these are all too often the same narrow rota of left leaning voices whose opinions are frequently shot down by the presenters. Even when Government statements are read out by way of balance, those same presenters often read them in a sneering tone, quickly dismissing any sense of due impartiality.

To be clear, I have no issue with any broadcaster featuring views that differ from mine, or may be uncomfortable to listen to. But they must start to operate within the clear regulatory framework we have in the UK. If GB News is to be classified as a regulated news channel, the same rules must be applied to it as to others. That doesn’t appear to be the case.

Back in 2017, Fox News rescinded its broadcast licence in the UK. It claimed this was due to low audience figured, but it had also been found in breach of Ofcom’s regulation. It will be interesting to see what conclusions the regulator reaches on its current GB News investigation. The channel has already been sanctioned five times by Ofcom.

But what is the point of an Editorial Charter if there is no obvious mechanism to enforce it? Why bother having one if the principles of it are routinely ignored? We are at a crucial crossroads in broadcast journalism. I respectfully content that the central tenet of due impartiality must not only stay in our regulations, but be properly regulated.

Kevin Stanley is a former BBC journalist who now specialises in communications, content and journalism training.

Subscribe now

Who trusts which media outlets?

The Government’s stance on media literacy

Why we need a statutory Media Literacy Trust

Trust. It’s a simple word, yet a tricky one to define. Trust is earned, we are told, yet whether or not your trust someone or something is entirely subjective. This week the Government set out a Green Paper which proposes to give “trusted” news platforms a greater prominence on social media. But what is a trusted platform? Who decides?

It has naturally caused a debate among news providers. Just last month I attended a lecture by the Nottingham Post Editor Natalie Fahy, who explained the current problem with social media algorithms. Put simply, UK regional newspapers appear far less frequently in a Google search for news stories than the BBC. Unsurprisingly the newspaper industry thinks that’s unfair, so perhaps these proposed changes may go some way to fixing it.

There is, however, is much more important issue raised in the Green Paper that’s been largely overshadowed by the headlines about the headlines. It’s one that affects the whole of society, and one that needs urgent attention - and proper funding. Media literacy has never been more important. The slew of disinformation on social platforms isn’t just eating into the trusted news industry, it is in danger of completely replacing it.

Trust is shifting - on all platforms

If you think that sounds alarmist, look at the evidence. The highly respected Reuters Digital News Report is the most comprehensive global survey of news consumption. While its findings for the UK suggest that 50% of people are avoiding the news at least some of the time, the range of online sources is growing, especially on platforms like Facebook and Youtube.

While the term “online” can, of course, include legacy media like broadcasters and newspaper publishers. there’s compelling evidence to suggest more people are going elsewhere. And it’s the “elsewhere” that should be of real concern. Recent research from the Social Market Foundation found that misinformation was rife in both Facebook and X, especially in the run up to the May 2026 local elections. For full transparency, that report was partly funded by the BBC, which of course has a vested interest.

I would politely suggest that any outlet presenting itself as a news published should also have a vested interest. The Reuters report given them good reason to, when it comes to how much their content is actually trusted.

A vague plan is worse than no plan at all

The Government’s own Green Paper also explores some of the factors affecting the audience’s ability to separate factual reporting from opinion. Without specifically naming relative newcomers like GB News and Talk, it says :

There is also significant concern that the distinction between factual news reporting and political polemic is being blurred in the UK media landscape. Whilst partisan reporting has an important place in the information environment, it can be harmful if audiences cannot easily distinguish between objective fact, and opinion or polemic. The rise in politicians being used as presenters has also contributed to this risk, particularly in a regulated and trusted environment such as Ofcom regulated programming.

One might well wonder if it is such a risk, why is it allowed. That’s for another day. The Government has also acknowledged the challenge for schools; it’s recent Curriculum Review recommends that Media Literacy is specifically enhanced within English classes. This is all well and good, but how long will it take before the recommendations in that review become a reality? The issue is real, it’s here and it’s happening now.

Returning to the Green Paper, there is a suitably woolly response to what may observers would say is a serious threat to our civil discourse.

we will explore the development of a new initiative to support coordinated delivery of media literacy activity. Public service media and the wider media sector – both local and national – will be central to this. We will also explore ways to engage a broader range of organisations, including civil society and technology companies, to support a move beyond siloed approaches and towards more joined-up, cross-sector working

Will society grasp the solutions?

OK, great. But who will fund this activity? I’m personally in favour of using part of the BBC’s Licence Fee, but only if this is matched with proportionate investment from commercial public broadcasters and, crucially, the global tech giants. There’s little point in teaching children (and adults) how to spot misinformation if the algorithms are working to drive audiences away from trusted news sources. What we need, in my view. a Media Literacy Trust - consisting of news providers, educational experts and business - which adequately funds education from primary schools to day centres for seniors.

The Trust would have a statutory footing, and could work in tandem with organisations like Ofcom and the DCMS Select Committees to deliver meaningful, lasting education to this and future generations. A brave Government might even impose sanctions on tech giants who refuse to take part, or remove the broadcast licences of those that won’t sign up to a new Standards Code, reshaped for the digital age.

This may sound like a long wish list, but it’s entirely feasible to achieve with very little cost to the public purse. What it needs, of course, is the political will to do it. Lisa Nandy’s Culture Department talks the talk in protecting public service media, but this can only be achieved if we change the discourse around disinformation.

Kevin Stanley is a former BBC journalist who now works as a freelance in communications, content and teaching journalism.

Subscribe now

They also, by definition, hold an elevated position of responsibility. That should normally mean thinking carefully about what they say. This week, it came as no surprise to learn that the judge in the Manchester Airport trial had referred the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to the Attorney General for potential Contempt of Court.

Farage’s comments, and the subsequent referral, should be understood by every journalism student, because it gives us a clear insight into how contempt can be triggered, not least in today’s digital age.

Nigel Farage, as pictured by the Press Association

The case centres around two men, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz and Muhammad Amaad who were involved in a brawl with police offers at Manchester Airport in July 2024. Amaaz was previously convicted of assaulting two female officers, PC Lydia Ward and PC Ellie Cook, and a Starbucks customer during the same alleged incident. But in a second retrial, the jury could not reach a verdict on whether the pair were guilty of assaulting Police constable Zachary Marsden near the Airport terminal on the same day.

Footage has been widely circulated online showing parts of the incident. This and other evidence will have been shown to the juries in both trials. As you may expect these days, the footage has sparked a significant public debate around claims of “tow tier policing” in the UK. And this is where Nigel Farage comes in.

During the first trial at Liverpool Crown Court, Farage held a press conference where he stated :

In a system of two-tier policing, under two-tier justice, under two-tier Keir, has really taken hold. You only have to look at the reluctance to prosecute those violent thugs in Manchester Airport who beat up the police officers. It took months and months for any prosecution to be brought, and I suspect the reason that it happened is because Reform said if they didn’t we would take out our own private prosecution.

On the same day – and not in front of the jury – Judge Neil Flewitt KC said a member of the public had informed him over lunch about the comments from Mr Farage. The case was allowed to continue. In a later written ruling the Judge said :

“I took the view that the observation made by Nigel Farage was potentially a contempt of court as it implied the guilt of the defendants. As Nigel Farage is a well-known politician with a considerable following and whose public utterances attract a lot of attention, I decided to refer the matter to the Attorney General so that he could consider whether there should be a prosecution for contempt of court. That matter is now out of my hands.”

It was also necessary for me to consider whether this development had the potential to affect the fairness of the trial. I decided that this intervention, however unwelcome, would not adversely affect the fairness of the trial.”

Following publication of the Judge’s comments, Mr Farage responded by saying

“It’s quite clear that our judiciary is in an even worse state than I imagined. The politicisation of the courts will end under a Reform Government."

What does this case tell us?

There is clearly a debate to be had over whether judges are becoming politically motivated in their actions. But in this case, it was quite simple. During active court proceedings, Mr Farage decided to make comments about the ongoing case and imply guilt of those on trial. Because of his high profile figure as leader of a political party, the weight and potential for a contempt to be committed increases. Of course, juries are always told to strictly disregard anything they may have read, seen or heard before a case begins, and are often reminded of that during proceedings. Here, the Judge elected not to disclose Mr Farage’s comments to the jury as doing so would likely mean the trial collapsing. An importantly, this was a trial where one of the defendants was convicted.

You can’t just report things from a press conference

In legal terms, making an allegation during a Press Conference, and reporting on it as a matter of public interest, is one of the defences against a defamatory comment. A Press Conference carries a degree of qualified privilege. However, this does not apply to active court cases. It’s also worth remembering that proceedings are “active” at teh point of an arrest being made.

Parliamentary privilege may be excepted, but even that may not be reportable

The 1689 Bill of Rights means that politicians cannot be sued for defamation or face prosecution if they say something that is untrue in the House of Commons, the House of Lords or a Parliamentary Committee. However, the media is not protected in reporting the comments if that carries a significant risk of prejudicing a trial. This would apply during active proceedings, so from the point of arrest.

The wider context is important in this debate

All of the above is, of course, against the background of a digital landscape that is filled with comment, opinion and - guess what - misinformation. Many would argue that the Contempt of Court Act, like so much legislation, has failed to keep pace with the development of technology. However, we are not talking about the keyboard warriors Karen768098324 or WhiteBritNow (fictional handles, I night add), but the leader of a UK political party.

My own view is that Farage was taking a gamble here : had the trial been halted (even if he were the cause) that would have amplified his assertion of two tier justice. Had he been cautioned or prosecuted for Contempt, that makes him a free speech martyr. However, that the Judge even referred him to the Attorney General strikes me as sensible and timely warning to those in positions of responsibility : you are not above the law. Equally, it cements the principles of Contempt to everyone, including journalists.

Kevin Stanley is a former BBC journalist who now specialises on communications, content and coaching.

Share

Subscribe now

© 2026 Kevin Stanley

Indeed, there is a certain sadistic pleasure in jabbing the metaphorical badge of honour into your chest after a hard week of getting it in the neck from those who would rather you weren’t there. But this week, the rules of engagement have once again been tested. And once again it is due to the bullying tactics of Reform UK.

I do not know Martin Godwin, and I had never heard of him until Nigel Farage decided to weaponise his press card on social media. The photographer had evidently been near one of Farage’s residences, just as journalists have done for years with prominent political figures. There was no suggestion that Godwin had been anywhere other than on the public highway, no evidence that he had sought to breach the Reform leader’s privacy and no proof that he had done anything other than his actual job. But Farage was having none of it.

As with many photographers, it would appear that Martin Godwin is a freelance. The Guardian was quick (and correct) to issue a statement of support :

“The Guardian is concerned by the recent publication on Nigel Farage’s social media pages of the professional credentials of a photographer working on behalf of the Guardian while he was working lawfully in a public space. Holding public figures to account is the role of a free press.”

The NUJ, which issued the press card, added its backing :

“No journalist should be subject to actions that target them or expose them to potential risk in the course of their legitimate work. This flies in the face of press freedom.”

For those outside the industry, the UK Press Card is not a political badge. The National Union of Journalists is just one of many “gatekeepers” who control their issue. The list includes many broadcasters, including GB News. It proves that the holder is a legitimate, accredited journalist.

Farage’s latest stunt is just one from the growing playbook of how Reform UK treats journalists with contempt, and it’s a straight copy of what we have seen with Donald Trump. Few are better placed to describe it than Natalie Fahy, the Editor of Reach PLC’s Nottinghamshire Live (the Nottingham Post to us old hacks), who warned in an editorial this week :

“the early signs are that Reform’s big success is leading them to a place of arrogance. They think they are beyond criticism and don’t need to speak to the media or answer questions on behalf of the very people who voted for them.”

Natalie’s colleagues have first hand experience of Reform’s script - when the party took control of Nottinghamshire County Council in 2025, its leader, Mick Barton, decided he wanted nothing to do with the Nottingham Post. It was made worse when Barton banned interview requests from the Local Democracy Reporters, who are employed by Reach but funded by the BBC Licence Fee. A five week standoff followed, and the ban was only lifted when Reach threatened the council with legal action.

I have also witnessed the arrogance of Reform’s Lee Anderson, who once tried to bully my colleague Verity Cowley who’d recorded a radio interview with him. At time time, her was a Conservative MP and had just been appointed as Vice Chairman of the party. When the questions started getting tough, Anderson suddenly said : “I do not give you permission to broadcast this unless you play the interview in full”. This was an absurd request, since mist interviews are routinely edited for time purposes. However, the BBC called Anderson’s bluff and did so. You can draw your own conclusions by listening to the interview for yourself.

Anderson’s clash with Verity wasn’t the only example, but it is symptomatic of the way politicians think they have the right to control the agenda when under scrutiny. Watch almost any Reform UK press conference and hear the sneering and jeering from the crowd when the leadership call for questions from “the BBC” - said in a voice that you’d use having stepped in a dog turd.

Farage and others have a well heeled routine designed to intimidate those asking questions. As journalists , we should never give in to bullies.

Kevin Stanley is a former BBC journalist who now specialises in communications, content and coaching.

Subscribe now

Deadline magazine was among the first to break the news that the UK’s media regulator Ofcom is to investigate GB News over Bev Turner’s interview with Donald Trump, first shown last November. It was conducted in the year when the channel ambitiously expanded its operation into the US, embedding Turner and Ben Leo as its main presenters stateside. It was entirely unsurprising that GB News later became available to millions of new followers via Trump’s own Truth Social platform.

Predictably the interview proved to be controversial, as Trump made a number of false claims that were not challenged by Turner. This included misinformation about climate change, and an assertion that London has several “no go areas”. Section 5 of Ofcom’s Broadcast Code sets out the rules here : that “due impartiality” must be maintained, and Section 2 states that “Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” Put simply, if an untruth is spoken, it should be corrected or challenged.

Now, Bev Turner is by no means the only presenter whom viewers may feel fails to challenge a guest speaker when they speak an untruth. Every broadcaster dealing with politics is often fair game for a disgruntled viewer or listener. But in this case, the interview itself isn’t the issue.

At the time, 32 complaints were received by Ofcom, which said at the time it would not be launching a formal investigation. The regulator told The Guardian that Trump’s views “were not challenged during the interview itself”, but said “alternative perspectives” were set out in a surrounding panel discussion, which challenged his opinions.

Ofcom vs GB News isn’t a new story

That initial decision led some to question Ofcom’s reluctance. Some pointed to a high court ruling in 2025, which concluded that the regulator had unlawfully found a GB News programme in breach of its Broadcast Code. The issue here was around serving politicians presenting news coverage, and was somewhat nuanced. Ofcom claimed GB News had broken the rules because Jacob Rees-Mogg, a then Conservative MP, had “presented” news items during his show. In reality, Rees-Mogg had referred to breaking news events that happened when he was on air, largely simply reading the script and offering no comment.

But back to Bev Turner. Ofcom has now concluded that while the original programme featuring Trump’s interview (at midnight UK time) did feature a range of views, questions remain on whether Dawn Neesom’s show, the next day, complied with the same rules. Put simply, did Neesom’s show carry a range of alternative views, including those that challenged Trump’s lies?

GB News has been quick to issue a statement : “Ofcom’s U-turn over the repeat of the interview follows adverse commentary around its original decision by prominent critics of both Ofcom and GB News. The sequence of events inevitably raises questions around the rationale for reopening the matter at this stage. It also raises serious concerns around regulatory certainty, procedural fairness, and the consistency of Ofcom’s processes. GB News stands firmly by its journalism and editorial standards.”

There’s nothing certain like uncertainty

For me, there is a clear phrase in that statement that no student or practitioner of broadcasting can disagree with. “Regulatory certainty.” Roughly translated, everyone wants to know that if the rules are broken, will they be enforced? And what are the penalties?

Unfortunately for Ofcom, there appears to be no clear or consistent answer. In October 2024, it announced a fine of £100,000 against GB News for a breach of editorial standards earlier that year, when it featured Rishi Sunak in a “People’s Forum”. No other major political leaders were afforded the same coverage. Although GB News challenged that in its high court action, it did not win. Ofcom has yet to impose the fine. Yet fines are enforced on small community radio stations that fail to follow the rules.

Scholars may well argue that this is a classic case of two tier regulation, where enforcement is imposed on small operators while big broadcasters get away with it. There may well be some truth in that. It is also probably the case that Ofcom is reluctant to take such action because of the litigious nature of outlets like GB News; after the High Court defeat, it was publicly-funded Ofcom that was forced to pay its legal costs.

So once again we are left with a dilemma for Ofcom. Will it conclude that GB News carried a range of alternative views on the repeated show? And if so, will it finally impose a significant sanction on a channel that had breached its Broadcast Code five times?

Don’t hold your breath.

Kevin Stanley is a former BBC journalist who now specialises in communications, content and coaching

Subscribe now

The broadcasting rules around elections in the UK are curious, and plenty argue that in today’s digital world they are outdated. Put very simply, Section Six of Ofcom’s Broadcast Code forbids any discussion of election matters on polling day, which is why the main broadcasters prepare for an up-all-night results bonanza, stretching long into the next day as many votes are no longer counted overnight.

But while the regulator can determine what happens on the air, it has no such powers over what happens online. Only today I have seen several supposedly “impartial” presenters posting stuff on X that would likely get them fired if they said it on TV. Unsurprisingly, they are largely the same presenters who argue that Ofcom’s rules need overhauling.

Even before polling day, it is especially hard to navigate the regulations when it comes to local elections, because as soon as you mention a specific constituency you’re legally bound to feature candidates from the largest parties (which may differ depending on where you are in the country), and provide the audience with a complete list of everyone standing. It is, quite frankly, an administrative pain in the arse.

This may explain why many national broadcasters tend to shy away from featuring too many specific local candidates or constituencies. In recent years, the BBC has used its network of Political Reporters to talk in general terms about geographical areas - you can mention the constituency itself if you’re a reporter, but must make reference to all of the main parties. During the 2026 Local Elections, GB News has generally avoided references to the polls, prompting some pundits to “not mention the local elections.”

But there is also some confusion about what the rules do and don’t say. Some believe that you can’t discuss any kind of political story on polling day. Not true. You’re only barred from speaking about “election issues”. In practice, most broadcasters wisely shy away from political stories on the day. Some will even say “we can’t discuss politics today because of the elections”. However, there’s nothing to stop any kind of non-election coverage should a big political story break.

Sometimes a decision may depend on legal advice. All the major broadcasters have access to on call lawyers to deal with such questions, though the precise answer and guidance you get can often depend on which lawyer you call. The BBC also has an extra layer of regulation via “Ed Pol”; not, as some believe, an actual person called Edward, but the department known as Editorial Policy. Generally speaking, Ed Pol will go along with what the lawyer says, and sometimes be more cautious not only around what is legal but what the BBC’s wider Editorial Guidelines say.

So, should Ofcom’s “Section Six” (and Section Five, for that matter) be overhauled or relaxed? Is it fair to tie broadcasters with stringent rules when even people working for those broadcasters can do what they like online?

For me, there are two questions. One of ethics and one of technology.

Ethically speaking, news presenters from the main broadcast channels are usually expected to remain impartial on air. I put that job title in bold because it matters. It applies specifically to news broadcasts, not discussion or panel shows - though in practice the same principles apply throughout programming, with the exception of “disruptor channels” like GB News or Talk (more of which later). Furthermore, most main broadcasters have their own codes of conduct for news presenters and editorial staff, which forbid them from expressing partisan views, even online.

I would contend that while such internal staff rules are cumbersome, it means the broadcast company has the ability to maintain due impartiality overall. Several names have famously left the BBC - Mishal Hussain, Emily Matlis and Jon Sopel among them - so they can have their “own” voice. Rather less famously, that was one of my reasons for leaving.

And so to technology. Once again, the regulations haven’t kept pace with the scale and speed of change. It would, in my view, be entirely possible for Ofcom to extend its guidelines to online content - including posts by broadcast companies on platform like X. However, it would probably require additional legislation and would doubtless face vocal opposition on the grounds it attacks free speech.

Journalistically, that’s a difficult tightrope to walk.

Subscribe now

My own post was in response to this post by David Poulton which in itself has had 1.7 million views. Referring to an online video, whose origins aren’t known, he claimed the bar tender in a Wetherspoons pub had refused to serve a customer because they support Reform UK. The young man was labelled a “far left extremist”, with Poulton calling for him to be immediately sacked.

Poulton has over 90 thousand followers on X, his account is littered with opinions and tropes associated with the far right. None of this surprised me. But what concerned me as a journalist was the number of people who then joined in the pile on against the young bar tender. They included the journalist Carole Malone who also suggested the guy should “rightly” lose his job. Malone is a regular pundit on GB News, and was previously forced to issue a public apology after claiming Meghan Markle’s mother had spent time in prison.

I can easily understand why someone with no journalistic experience can fall for such misinformation, but it worries me that a number of regulated outlets seem to be increasingly reposting stuff they found online with little or no effort to verify the story.

LBC was among those who published the viral video with a simple get out paragraph of “we’ve contacted Wetherspoons for comment.” The race to get the story out there, generating traffic, appears to be more important that checking if it’s actually true.

Having watched the growing list of publications giving this story credibility, I did what any sensible journalist would do, and contacted the Wetherspoons press office. It is a one man operation, run by the affable Eddie Gershon. While the keyboard warriors were berating the Wetherspoons boss Tim Martin for not having a social media account online (he does, actually), they too could have easily found Eddie’s direct email address on the ‘spoons website. A statement arrived within minutes.

So, as I had suspected from the start, there was more to this story than met the eye. In fact, many an Editor might have concluded that this was a non-story in the first place and unpublished their original story.

But that is not how things work in 2026. Quite righlyy, all of the outlets listed above added extra paragraphs to the story to carry the correction from Wetherspoons. However, it didn’t matter; it had already gone viral, generated millions of clicks cumulatively, and probably earned some revenue to a print industry that’s struggling.

I get it. I’m neither naive or a dinosaur when it comes to understanding how today’s journalism works. Sadly, it comes from a place of frenzy and untruths, generated by people online who should never be let near a newsroom. It’s further fuelled by those labelling themselves as citizen journalists; they are nothing of the sort.

Hopefully my own thread on X will go some way to redressing the balance. Our profession, as a whole, is still one where checks and balances are done. All too often that is now done in tandem with hitting the publish button, rather than waiting for the full facts to emerge.

Kevin Stanley is a former BBC journalist who now works as a freelance communications consultant, content creator and teacher of journalism.

To old hacks like me, the clickbait nature of today’s news landscape can be incredibly frustrating. Yet so many managers talk as if there’s nothing else. Take the BBC’s Digital First strategy or, as many in the Corporation call it, another excuse to cut linear broadcast output.

No, perhaps I’m being unfair there. Or am I? I recall sitting in yet another team briefing, hosted by a senior manager, in which we were told that engagement with digital content was now a key metric. “Just look at the story when ran last week,” they enthused, “which attracted over four thousand comments within the first two hours and became the most read story on the BBC website that day.”

I won’t name the story in question, but a wise colleague then asked the manager if we were in danger of obsessing over clicks without considering the kind of interaction it was encouraging. They argued that while there were, indeed, over four thousands comments, many were offensive, mocking and racist. Was this really the kind of content we wanted to focus on - stuff that was big on numbers but also big on unpleasantness? The concern was quickly dismissed.

Some outlets have decided to take action. Graeme Brown, the boss of the Birmingham Mail, has called out the racist reaction to an article celebrating Eid. It’s a refreshing approach that is sadly lacking elsewhere. Much of this is down to the complete lack of resources to moderate or police public comments. The BBC’s approach is [usually] to remove offensive replies if they are made aware of it. But this usually relies on a diligent journalist flagging it to the relevant editor, which in the case of the BBC ‘s vast online content can be any of a hundred people.

Let the people have their say, even if their views are unpleasant. Perhaps so. Yet when it comes to some stories, news providers could be in a trickier position than they sometimes let on.

From the moment of arrest to the conclusion of a trial, the law states that “proceedings are active” and any coverage of a story must take this into account. Before the days of social media, reinforcing the principles of the Contempt of Court Act was relatively easy. Print could be controlled. Digital, less so.

This week I engaged in a debate on this subject where a respected news outlet posted details of a criminal trial, leaving comments open. Several replies suggested the defendant was almost certainly guilty and should be jailed for a long time. I contended that allowing replies was a mistake.

David Banks, the highly respected media lawyer disagreed with my assessment : “Generally, the rule is that comments are allowed. If you have the editorial control to do so you should remove prejudicial comment if and when you’re notified of it. The offending publisher here is the poster and X, not the original poster”. In other words, the social media platform had a problem, not the news outlet. If anyone was in Contempt of Court, it would be X and the person who posted the offending material.

Another media law expert, Polly Rippon, took a slightly different view, referring to the guidance issued by the press regulator IPSO. It reads :

If you post a link on a social media platform to a report on active/ongoing criminal proceedings, you have a legal duty not to breach the Contempt of Court Act 1980. Failure to do so can result in a fine or a custodial sentence.

When posting information related to ongoing criminal proceedings to social media sites, you should therefore consider how best to warn social media users that they must not post related comments that may prejudice a fair trial. Consider removing the ability to post comments altogether.

To me, that final sentence is central message. Why risk it if there’s a chance you may get into trouble?

David Banks replies : “There are a couple of issues with that guidance. Firstly… the last time an editor was jailed for contempt by publication was 1949. It’s theoretically possible, but it doesn’t happen now, editors get fined. Secondly, removal of the ability to reply isn’t possible with all platforms and even where it is, posters will just quote tweet and screen shot if they want to do so. I don’t think it fully appreciated social media behaviours.”

And therein lies the problem. Like much of the rules and guidance around editorial, it simply hasn’t kept pace with the technology. Whenever I was confronted with a legal dilemma, I was fortunate is having the resources of a BBC lawyer to guide me. The test for them was usually to assess whether there was ever a substantial risk of prejudice in what we were saying. Different lawyers would apply different thresholds, but you were always covered by the phrase “LEGALLED BY XYZ” at the top of a script. If it went wrong, it was their problem not yours.

The debate so far has been around established news outlets. And you might argue that the bigger the outlet, the bigger the risk is that a juror might see a comment and a trial could collapse. David Banks takes a different view : “I think the far bigger risk than mainstream media is what goes on in fairly large community Facebook groups around local trials. They’ve had to shift at least two trials because of witness intimidation and prejudicial material. A much more serious situation in my opinion.”

He’s right, of course, and the example here highlights just how much of an unregulated sewer social media has become. It’s not only the contributors who have no sense of legal knowledge, but those who set up the groups, and have exactly the same level of legal responsibility as a professional publisher.

Whether we like it our not, controversy drives clicks, clicks drive comments, and that drives income. It would be nice, though, if those with the power would occasionally exercise a little more responsibility.

Subscribe now

Share

Kevin Stanley is a former BBC broadcaster and journalist who now specialises in strategic communications, training and teaching