The GB News backlash - an unedifying spectacle

I’m hesitant to comment on the GB News controversy.

However, as an occasional (non-paid!) guest who recently praised the fledgling station, it’s impossible to ignore completely.

To be clear, I can’t defend Laurence Fox’s comments, but whatever fate ultimately befalls GB News - and I hope it survives with some tweaks here and there - I’ve found much of the reaction pretty unedifying.

The worst was the Newsnight interview in which two of the three guests - one of them a ‘Conservative’ MP - called for GB News to be taken off air, without a single voice defending the station.

(According to GB News, Newsnight editor Stewart Maclean has since admitted the programme “could have done better”, which is putting it mildly.)

Also disappointing, but not surprising, was the reaction of TalkTV. Like GB News, TalkTV is another station that broadcasts programmes featuring some highly polarising presenters and guests.

Despite this TalkTV ran an on-screen banner describing GB News as a ‘HATE CHANNEL’, which I thought was pretty despicable.

It was obvious why they were doing it because GB News is TalkTV’s direct rival and, ratings wise, the former is currently doing way better. Nevertheless it didn’t sit well with me, and I can’t imagine it sat well with some of TalkTV’s presenters.

Fair play then to presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer, in her last week on the breakfast programme before she switches to the early afternoon slot, for tweeting:

I'm surprised that so many people - including MPs and journalists - have so much time to spend demanding that @Ofcom close down a TV station they don't watch because someone said something they don't agree with.

In response to someone who then commented on her tweet, she added:

1. The BBC, Sky and ITV routinely break Ofcom rules with biased reporting & one-sided "debates" but Ofcom staff agree with their politics so don't investigate or punish.

2. Two presenters have been suspended and may lose their jobs. Is that not enough for your pound of flesh?

She even had Spiked’s Brendan O’Neill on her programme who said:

“This is an opportunistic moment for the middle-class mob, the leftish authoritarians, who’ve had GB News in their sights from the very beginning."

That was before the suspension yesterday of a third GB News presenter, Calvin Robinson.

Robinson had issued a statement criticising his bosses while announcing that he would not appear on the channel in solidarity with presenter Dan Wootton who had been suspended for his part in the Laurence Fox debacle.

Although I admire his loyalty to a colleague, I think it’s unwise to criticise your bosses so publicly, especially as the execs at GB News had no choice, really, because they’re fighting to keep the channel on air and their duty of care extends to all their employees, not just a handful of extreme ‘free speech’ martyrs.

As an aside, before the annual Battle of Ideas began, many years ago, the Academy of Ideas hosted a conference called ‘Freedom and its Limits’ and, hard though it is for some people to accept, there are limits, even to ‘free speech’, especially if you’re broadcasting on a regulated platform.

If you don’t want the credibility of being part of a regulated broadcast industry, go online.

That said, what I can’t stand is the way many rival broadcasters and commentators have piled in. Why, for example, did BBC radio presenter Nihal Arthanayake feel the need to tweet:

I once had Calvin Robinson on my show, he made little sense, it was like playing tennis with someone who only served at you, except he was holding a cricket bat and was using mouldy plums instead of tennis balls. It was bizarre.

When Robinson replied …

I do not remember, but you are welcome. I donated my time to you in good faith and supported your livelihood. Again, you are welcome. I hope other potential guests see your tweet and reconsider accepting.

… Arthanayake responded, even more churlishly:

Oh, I remember you. It was an utter waste of time. I have an amazing array of thoughtful eloquent guests, you were neither. Enjoy your time off.

Nice.

It reminded me of a post I wrote in December 2021 following the news that the New Zealand government intended to ban the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2008.

You can read it in full here (‘Balance and the BBC’) but here’s an extended passage:

I don’t know how other BBC programmes covered the subject, or whether they covered it all, but on Five Live presenter Nihal Arthanayake chose to discuss the issue with Hazel Cheeseman of the anti-smoking group ASH which hardly screams ‘balance’.

I was unaware of the interview until ASH tweeted a short clip. Forest’s response was to retweet it with the words ‘There are two sides to this debate' and tag @TherealNihal.

To be fair Arthanayake was quick to reply but his reaction was revealing. He declined to comment directly but instead tweeted a link to a page on the NHS website that reads:

Smoking is one of the biggest causes of death and illness in the UK. Every year around 78,000 people in the die from smoking, with many more living with debilitating smoking-related illnesses.

In response we wrote:

The health risks of smoking are very well known but this debate is also about freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Any chance you might give some airtime to that as well?

Clearly not because Arthanayake’s next tweet read:

Ok, just focus on this line then 'Every year around 78,000 people in the UK die from smoking.' and ruminate on that.

Having focussed (and ruminated) on that we replied:

Thank you, we are well aware of that, but there’s another side to this debate - freedom of choice & personal responsibility - that you overlook. Oh, and pleasure. Millions of adults enjoy smoking, despite the health risks, and don’t want to quit. Their views should be heard too.

His response to this read:

So to be clear, for the sake of balance, you want the chance to talk positively about something that the NHS says kills over 70,000 people a year?

To which we replied:

We aren’t denying the serious health risks associated with smoking but there are alternative and perfectly legitimate views on smoking that deserve to be heard on the BBC and elsewhere. Your listeners might find them interesting.

We then posted two links.

The first was to an article by artist David Hockney, 84, a confirmed smoker, who earlier this year gave an impassioned defence of smoking (Britain needs a cigarette) for UnHerd.

The second was a link to a 2004 BBC Newsnight film in which Hockney said of smoking, “It’s a serious subject because the subject is liberty” adding, “I smoke for my health, my mental health.”

Arthanayake didn’t respond to either so I don't know what he thought of Hockney's comments even though they reflect the views of many people, smokers and non-smokers alike.

What is depressing is that a leading presenter on a national BBC radio station appears to have set himself up as judge and jury on smoking and won’t acknowledge that a discussion on the subject is rather more complicated and nuanced that the bald statement that 'around 78,000 people in the UK die from smoking'.

It’s as if he has listened to one side (the prosecution) and decided that whatever case the defence might have it’s not worth listening to because the prosecution has already won the argument.

Indeed, if I understand him correctly (he may wish to correct me), Arthanayake seems to think that the health risks of smoking are so great that they outweigh any debate or discussion that might (shock, horror) offer a more positive/alternative view of smoking.

As readers know, Forest has never encouraged anyone to start smoking and we fully acknowledge the health risks associated with the habit.

Nevertheless we cling to the old-fashioned view that, in a liberal and mature society, the ability to make informed choices and take responsibility for our own health - especially when it involves known risk factors such as diet, alcohol and combustible tobacco - are principles worth fighting for, and discussing.

I added that:

I was on Arthanayake's show once but it was several years ago and I've never been invited back. Was it something I said?!

I should add that I’ve been interviewed, once, by Calvin Robinson (in August 2022) and although he was obviously inexperienced as a presenter you couldn’t fault his willingness to listen to both sides of the debate because also on the programme was “stop smoking expert” Louise Ross.

Arthanayake is clearly the more polished broadcaster (hardly surprising, he's been a BBC presenter for over two decades), but at least Robinson (and GB News) was willing to have that discussion. See ‘GB News - should smoking be banned?’.

You can also watch it here.