GB News collaboration with the Trump organisation- Do you think it undermines British democracy with mis information?

DaisyAnneReturns

The GB News example shows the difference between evidence-based criticism and suspicion-based reasoning. In this case, there are identifiable statements, a broadcast record, and a regulator assessing whether journalistic standards were met.

That’s very different from claiming that an organisation like the BBC routinely edits context without offering specific examples and then suggesting the real evidence is hidden. One is accountable to evidence; the other relies on suspicion

There is plenty of suspicion based reasoning on mainstream media, the whole man made climate debate is suspicion based, nothing is proven fact.

There is suspicion now about the BBC after the recent Trump clever editing debacle.
Naturally this makes viewers/listeners wonder what else has been edited and cobbled together to put a different slant on things.

I'm concerned that most media is misleading people and affecting our democracy. Sadly it seems too many of us have lost our ability to question what we're being fed by the media.

To answer the question set, yes, I think that it does.

If GB claims to he a news channel, as it seems to, by having 'News' in the title then its programmes should be scrutinised for factual content.

If you listened to GB news to the exclusion of any other source you would think the UK is on its knees and ready for a civil war. There is a need for balance of course but really ! Sadly it looks like the beloved BBC is not to be trusted ,either, at the other end of the scale.

No. But Labour is! It looks like the second year running I will be denied my vote in May.

Maremia

If GB claims to he a news channel, as it seems to, by having 'News' in the title then its programmes should be scrutinised for factual content.

It’s not as straightforward as that. Ofcomm had its fingers badly burned early in 2025 when two of its decisions on GBNews breaches were overturned by judicial review. The judgement hinged on whether the programmes which had been sanctioned were ‘news’ or ‘current affairs’. The standards to which ‘news’ items are held are more stringent with regard to accuracy and impartiality than are those for current affairs programmes.

The judicial review resulted in Ofcomm dropping other investigations.

Whether or not it takes action over the Trump interview seems to depend on the category into which it falls.

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

The GB News example shows the difference between evidence-based criticism and suspicion-based reasoning. In this case, there are identifiable statements, a broadcast record, and a regulator assessing whether journalistic standards were met.

That’s very different from claiming that an organisation like the BBC routinely edits context without offering specific examples and then suggesting the real evidence is hidden. One is accountable to evidence; the other relies on suspicion

There is plenty of suspicion based reasoning on mainstream media, the whole man made climate debate is suspicion based, nothing is proven fact.

Suspicion thrives when it isn’t required to justify itself. If we required the same evidentiary standard from sceptical claims as we do from scientific ones, many of these arguments would quickly collapse.

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

The GB News example shows the difference between evidence-based criticism and suspicion-based reasoning. In this case, there are identifiable statements, a broadcast record, and a regulator assessing whether journalistic standards were met.

That’s very different from claiming that an organisation like the BBC routinely edits context without offering specific examples and then suggesting the real evidence is hidden. One is accountable to evidence; the other relies on suspicion

There is plenty of suspicion based reasoning on mainstream media, the whole man made climate debate is suspicion based, nothing is proven fact.

Blimey - we have our very own GN flat-earther😀😀😀😃

simple his is a lair
everything that comes out his mouth

nanna8

If you listened to GB news to the exclusion of any other source you would think the UK is on its knees and ready for a civil war. There is a need for balance of course but really ! Sadly it looks like the beloved BBC is not to be trusted ,either, at the other end of the scale.

Saying "GB News makes it sound like civil war is coming" is an observation about tone. Saying ‘the BBC cannot be trusted’ is a claim about reliability.

If the sentence said something like, "I feel the BBC may also be untrustworthy,’ then it stays suspicion-based and consistent. You make it clear you are offering opinion not fact. Tone can raise suspicion, but reliability requires evidence. Once it says ‘is not to be trusted’, it reads as a settled, fact-based judgement, without the supporting facts.

It’s like saying, "That restaurant felt unfriendly, so it’s unsafe to eat there. The feeling might be valid, but ‘unsafe’ needs evidence, e.g., inspections, illness reports, something concrete.

Well. As they say up here in the NE, that's you told, nanna8

(Actually, what they really say is 'that's you tellt', but I wasn't sure if it was easy to translate...)

Whitewavemark2

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

The GB News example shows the difference between evidence-based criticism and suspicion-based reasoning. In this case, there are identifiable statements, a broadcast record, and a regulator assessing whether journalistic standards were met.

That’s very different from claiming that an organisation like the BBC routinely edits context without offering specific examples and then suggesting the real evidence is hidden. One is accountable to evidence; the other relies on suspicion

There is plenty of suspicion based reasoning on mainstream media, the whole man made climate debate is suspicion based, nothing is proven fact.

Blimey - we have our very own GN flat-earther😀😀😀😃

Climate change is fact, it’s happening, whether we can do anything about it is speculation, most governments accept that it’s man made but it isn’t proved it’s just consensus. Global emissions are still increasing, the UK we are not serious about climate change, we just import more instead of manufacturing more here, and call that “net gain”

The planet has been through many warm and cold periods in the past

It doesn't matter whether climatte change is man-made or natural, either way the last thing we need to be doing is anything that makes it worse. You do not try to put out a fire by pouring petrol on it.

nanna8

If you listened to GB news to the exclusion of any other source you would think the UK is on its knees and ready for a civil war. There is a need for balance of course but really ! Sadly it looks like the beloved BBC is not to be trusted ,either, at the other end of the scale.

😁 Pay attention at the back nanna8.

Thank goodness I don't watch it!
Reading about it on here from those who says how terrible it is, although they themselves never watch it, is bad enough.

MaizieD

Well. As they say up here in the NE, that's you told, nanna8

(Actually, what they really say is 'that's you tellt', but I wasn't sure if it was easy to translate...)

Given how dismissively you lecture others over MMT, a minority economic view, this comment is hard to take seriously.

Crikey everyone is feisty today.

Well said MOnica. Why make it worse?

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

Well. As they say up here in the NE, that's you told, nanna8

(Actually, what they really say is 'that's you tellt', but I wasn't sure if it was easy to translate...)

Given how dismissively you lecture others over MMT, a minority economic view, this comment is hard to take seriously.

😂

Rudeness is not becoming.

I have watched GB news and Jim Davidson and Katie Hopkins. If I really want to depress myself, I read some of the numerous supportive comments that appear below.

I am what Trump calls RLWS so, of course I am biased but I find the reporting and comments of the above rely too heavily on pre-conceived ideas and opinions that they bend the narrative to fit. They never let facts get in the way of a good lefty bashing story.

How Trump is still believed, respected and liked by anybody is a complete mystery to me after all the bonkers things he has said and done.

It is high time, in my opinion, that GB News should be investigated on the grounds that a lot of their output is not properly researched, unbiased news.

nanna8

Rudeness is not becoming.

It's probably better to give reasonable references and backing for claims made late at night UK time, when waking up and sounding off on number of threads.

The brusque nature of your comments get replied to in kind - quite straightforward.

So Trumps suing the BBC for fake news about him. Can we sue him for blatant lies about us,?

theworriedwell

So Trumps suing the BBC for fake news about him. Can we sue him for blatant lies about us,?

Good idea!