The Future of News (Communications and Digital Committee Report) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Baroness Fox of Buckley

Main Page: Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Friday 25th April 2025

(1 day, 20 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, it is hard to follow a speech that mentions “gobby Back-Benchers” without taking it personally. First, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the committee for such a thought-provoking report. The variety of new material and the wide array of witnesses and opinion show a recognition that the evolving news media landscape requires a certain openness, even humility. None of us has ready-made solutions to present challenges. I have made copious notes about the report, but in just a few minutes I will raise some issues that might need further exploration.

In chapter 7, on dis- and misinformation, many witnesses raised unease about mission creep and how these elastic terms are often weaponised to denigrate viewpoints subjectively judged as wrongthink or harmful. This has led to accusations of partisan one-sidedness. Official fact checkers have not helped. BBC Verify has had, to say the least, a chequered career, and it certainly has ideological blind spots.

Since the report was written, Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has admitted that the company’s third-party fact checkers were politically biased. The leaked Facebook papers and X files have showed that politicians pressurised new media outlets to label factual, if inconvenient, truths as misinformation as a precursor to censorship. No wonder Spiked’s editor Tom Slater was so forthright with the committee, calling the new anti-disinformation industry a new “anti-dissent industry”. Do not get me wrong: I am not complacent about allowing untruths to go unchallenged, but I am not sure that fact checkers or indeed media literacy is the answer.

Ironically, the perceived inconsistency of the mainstream media’s factual gatekeepers has fuelled a broader cynicism about whom to believe and expertise of any sort. Interestingly, some of the more effective counters to this are coming from within alt media’s ranks. What does the Minister think of community notes on X or Meta, for example? What does she think of author Douglas Murray’s intervention when he went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to challenge him directly for a disregard of due diligence on guests on Israel and Ukraine? This has led to the “Podcastistan” pushback and debate on the dangers of ill-informed opinion presented as fact, led by fellow podcasters such as Konstantin Kisin and Winston Marshall. There are hopeful signs of self-correction here.

Young people especially tune in to news-adjacent podcasts, as they feel ill served by mainstream news. So chapter 6, on serving a diverse range of audiences, was key for me. I have one concern: a call for more diversity in the media can be confusing, as the term has become politicised and interpreted through the prism of identity politics. It hardly ever considers class, and diversity of viewpoints is even rarer. It is one reason why new market entrants such as TalkTV and especially GB News are snobbishly dismissed and subject to some frankly hysterical attacks from journalists within the news industry. I recently read one criticism of GB News for its lack of diversity because it had given double the coverage to the rape grooming gangs than all the five news channels combined. This was used as an accusation, but perhaps it shows underreporting of a story that tens of thousands feel passionately about, and that their concerns about it are being ignored.

The report tells us that complaints to Ofcom have risen by 600% since the launch of GB News and TalkTV, and no doubt some of that is merited. But, although some will assume that that immediately equates to guilt, I have a warning: a new brand of anti-free speech activism is skewing perception. In February, the infamous NGO the Good Law Project delivered nearly 72,000 complaints it had collected to Ofcom about an alleged transphobic and Islamophobic joke made by GB News’ “Free Speech Nation” presenter Josh Howie. Without commenting on the specifics myself, I note that that complaint has been refuted by many leading lesbian and gay campaigners.

Yet another tranche of complaints about Howie’s comments were made directly to Ofcom, but, after an orchestrated online campaign featuring a misleading edited clip—misinformation—some media commentators gleefully reported and suggested that this means that it being the most complained about programme in Ofcom’s history is proof that GB News should be closed down. But the incident occurred on a comedy show, “Headliners”, where three comedians, including Howie, made jokes as they reviewed the papers—

Baroness Wheeler Portrait Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I remind the noble Baroness that the advisory speaking time is four minutes. Can she please wind up?

--- Later in debate ---
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
- Hansard - -

I am sorry; this is my last sentence.

It was no riskier, though funnier, than “Have I Got News for You”, which is often offensive but does not offend the metropolitan elite. We should not have two-tier regulation.