A mass grave created by the IDF has been uncovered at a Gaza hospital, where Palestinian civilians appear to have been the victims of a gruesome massacre. “Bah, that’s old news Caitlin,” you may be saying. “We already know about the massacre and mass graves which were discovered a few weeks ago at the al-Shifa Continue reading »

Broadcast regulator Ofcom has confirmed that its rules do not allow the controversial channel GB News to be held to different impartiality standards from those governing public service broadcasters, as “the same rules and assessment process apply to all broadcasters”.

Byline Times previously reported that I had partnered with the Good Law Project to inform Ofcom that we intended to apply for a judicial review of its approach to GB News unless it made clear that it had not changed its policy on due impartiality in the case of smaller, non-public service, broadcasters.

In particular, on the point of holding them to different standards from those governing the public service broadcasters – something which its Broadcasting Code does not appear to permit.

Our action was prompted by remarks by Ofcom's CEO, Dame Melanie Dawes, about the channel to Sky News, in which she stated that Ofcom’s requirement for due impartiality could be achieved “in lots and lots of different ways” – including ways that are appropriate for audience expectations and for the subject matter of a programme.

"The standard for someone like the BBC, which reaches still, 70% of the TV viewing audience for news, is a different one from that of a channel that has an audience of maybe 4% or 5% of a of the viewing public," she added. "We expect different things and I think that's appropriate."

We have now received a response from Ofcom, which states that our proposed claim is “based on a false premise", is "entirely misconceived and without merit”.

It states that we have “hypothesised an alleged policy on the basis of two brief remarks made in the context of a live Q&A interview” and that the comments quoted “were clearly not intended to be, and should not be taken as, an unpublished policy position of Ofcom”.

The regulator also pointed out that its CEO “does not play any role in the decision-making process in relation to the assessment, investigation, and enforcement of broadcasting standards generally and due impartiality matters specifically”.

The claim has therefore produced a very positive result: Ofcom has effectively admitted that Dame Melanie Dawes mis-spoke – and we now know that, given the nature of her role, we do not need to place too much store by her remarks about GB News and impartiality.

Ofcom also said that, in matters pertaining to impartiality, context is important.

Section five of its Code, which covers due impartiality, doesn’t actually explain what 'context’ means and unhelpfully refers back to section 2, which deals with harm and offence. But the latter lists a large number of factors including: the editorial content of a programme, programmes or series; the service on which the material is broadcast; and the likely size and composition of the potential audience and likely expectation of the audience. 

In its response, Ofcom stressed that “we always consider each case on its particular facts, taking into account the relevant context in our application of the Code”.  Audience size, then, can be taken into account in any given case – but the regulator has been keen to assure us that “the same rules and assessment process apply to all broadcasters”. 

Any further challenge to Ofcom, in the form of a request for judicial review, would be unlikely to receive permission to proceed – but not because our original challenge was “misconceived and without merit”. Rather because it put Ofcom in a position in which it had to distance itself from claims made by its CEO which were interpreted by some as indicating that there were looser impartiality rules for smaller broadcasters such as GB News than for public service broadcasters. 

That’s a useful marker for the future, and we’re perfectly happy with the outcome.   

Julian Petley is a Honorary Professor of Social and Political Sciences at Brunel University London

An antisemitism campaigner's clash with the Metropolitan Police yards from a pro-Palestinian march on 13 April was about a lot more than him looking "openly Jewish". I know, I was there when it happened.

Gideon Falter, chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), was blocked by a police officer and threatened with arrest in Aldwych, London – with the exchange caught on camera.

Footage published by Sky News showed Falter telling police officers that he wanted to make his way to the other side of where pro-Palestinian protestors were marching. The police did not less him pass and offered to escort him via another route, avoiding the protestors to ensure that he would be "completely safe".

During the exchange, one of the officers said Falter was being "disingenuous" and trying to "antagonise" others as he "took it upon himself" to walk "right into the middle" of the march and was "openly Jewish".

The incident sparked calls for the Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, to resign, and Scotland Yard has apologised twice.

Falter is the vice chairman member of the Jewish National Fund UK, which reportedly raised more than £1 million to fund ‘Israel’s largest militia’.

During the incident, he appeared to be flanked by a number of security guards in dark glasses and a videographer who later provided footage by the CAA to the press.

I happened to witness a small portion of Falter’s interaction with the police as I moved along the protest route.

As I had come towards Aldwych, I noticed the pro-Israeli protest with a number of Israeli flags, as well as a few Pahlavi Iranian flags featuring the face of the son of the last Shah of Iran. I saw one man being led away from the pro-Israel counter-protest by police, his wife following him. As I got nearer, I saw that some people from both sides were hurling insults and trying to antagonise each other. 

Stewards on the march were encouraging pro-Palestine demonstrators not to engage with the counter-protestors.

The clash at the Pro-Palestine march has led to calls for the Commissioner of the Met Police to resign. Photo: John Lubbock

It is clear that some Israel supporters are unhappy with the level of support for Palestine being demonstrated by the weekly marches, and are openly advocating that the police should ban demonstrations which former Home Secretary Suella Braverman has called "hate marches".

Following the incident, Falter told TalkTV that the Met Police should "ban the marches". Such calls have been going on since last November when Rowley refused to bow to calls to ban a demonstration held on Armistice Day.

This week’s headlines announcing that Falter had been prevented from crossing the demonstration route because he was "openly Jewish" have allowed all those people who previously called for the Met to ban marches to now call for Rowley’s resignation.

But there is more to the story than Falter’s categorisation of it as him being "simply Jewish in the vicinity of these marches". Falter's presence at the march had a number of contextual factors, of which looking "openly Jewish" was by no means the most important. It is, however, the only one which he chose to draw attention to

Falter claims he was not there to counter-protest, but why was he then trying to cross the march right next to the counter-protest, where antagonists on both sides were shouting at, and insulting, each other?

He claims he did not have a film crew, yet footage published of the incident by the BBC and others is credited to his organisation. Other videos show Falter at the centre of a group of people attempting to wade into the demonstration.

Protest movements seeking social and political change, which employ large street demonstrations to show their support, are used to agents provocateurs who aim to show the movement in a bad light by getting close to protestors and antagonising them. A man wearing a three-piece suit, with a number of security guards in tow, would look out of place almost everywhere except possibly entering a celebrity nightclub.

The attempts by Falter and some elements of the media to reduce his behaviour to a simple matter of him being Jewish appears to have an obvious political aim – to paint opposition to the Israeli state as motivated by racism.

I believe this is a political tactic employed by those who support the actions of the Israeli Government, which does a huge disservice to the fight against the real problem of antisemitism which exists globally.

The Jewish diaspora in the UK contains political factions which are highly critical of the Israeli Government and its actions in Gaza, and many hundreds of British Jews are regularly seen on these demonstrations.

The 13 April protest had a large contingent from the Jewish bloc, who gathered at a separate starting point before joining in with the head of the demonstration as it left Russell Square. Taking photos at the head of the march, I heard a loud cheer go up as the Jewish bloc joined the main march.

Attempting to paint pro-Palestine demonstrators as antisemitic, then, is an attempt to divide a large and diverse group of people calling for an end to the bombing of Gaza.

I didn’t stay to see the end of Falter’s confrontation with the police, because stewards advised us to move on and not engage with counter-protestors looking to antagonise people.

But Falter seems to have got exactly what he came for: a filmed confrontation which made a police officer look bad, and which is now being used to call for the sacking of the Met Commissioner.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism was contacted for comment.

Low rating news and opinion channel, Sky News Australia, has been tipped to be named as Australia’s future source of fuel with plans afoot to start mining the channel’s hosts for their nuclear outrage.

”This is a great move as the Sky News after dark team provide an almost renewable source of nuclear outrage,” said energy analyst Richard Watt. ”I mean just telling them that they are renewables is enough to create an abundance of nuclear outrage.”

”This may truly help Australia reach net-zero, ironically with a bunch of net-zeroes.”

When reached for comment on the plans to mine Sky News Australia, the channel’s resident funny-man, Rowan Dean, said of the proposal: ”How dare these green, leftist, Marxist, imperial, pinko, commo, hippyish, inner-city elites try to steal our outrage.”

”In Sky News after dark we have the most balanced news and opinion team in the game. Why we have voices from all sides of the spectrum from the hard-right to the extreme-right.”

”Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to film some footage of me yelling at a banana. Not sure why, but I’m sure it’ll play well in Queensland”

Mark Williamson

@MWChatShow

You can follow The (un)Australian on twitter @TheUnOz or like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/theunoz.

We’re also on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theunoz

The (un)Australian Live At The Newsagency Recorded live, to purchase click here:

https://bit.ly/2y8DH68