GB News is coming for the BBC and Sky
'We are ending the dominance of the BBC News Channel and Sky News,' crowed GB News's head of programming, Ben Briscoe, as he heralded new viewing figures for the station last month. While there is some degree of selective reporting in Briscoe's numbers, there's no doubt GB News did beat its rivals in several key slots in July. It's both an impressive and terrifying gain for the broadcaster, which only launched four years ago but aims to be Britain's biggest UK news channel by 2028.
Presumably, rioting outside migrant hotels and talk about impending civil unrest is good for business. Online, GB News had an audience of ten million in June (around half that of Sky and a quarter of the BBC). One former Sky journalist has little doubt GB News will reach its 2028 target, saying: 'When big stories break people still want the BBC and Sky, but the rest of the time there are a lot of viewers happy to sit and have their prejudices repeated back to them all day long.'
Yet still it is making losses: GB News, which is bankrolled by its owner, Paul Marshall, and the Dubai-based investment firm Legatum, lost $33.4m in 2023-24. Nigel Farage alone has earned £330,000 since July 2024. 'The losses are now utterly irrelevant,' one former insider said. 'Since Reform's polling kicked off, it is felt every penny is money well spent.'
An end to wokery awaits The Yorkshire Shepherdess and Cruising with Jane McDonald because Channel 5 falls under the ownership of Skydance Media, as part of an $8bn mega-deal. The British broadcaster is owned by Paramount Global, which is to be taken over by the US billionaire David Ellison (recently spotted hanging out UFC ringside with Donald Trump). The deal was signed off by the US TV regulator after Ellison pledged to end all diversity, equity and inclusion programmes and Paramount shelled out $16m to settle a legal battle with Trump over the editing of the 60 Minutes Kamala Harris interview. There's a rumoured side deal of $20m of free ads for Trump.
Friends of the London-based Channel 5 boss, Sarah Rose, are worried about how she will cope under the new regime. Just months ago she wrote: 'We are dedicated to creating an inclusive and equitable workplace,' and the channel has a 'no diversity, no commission' pledge on its website. Staff are concerned the channel's new owner might not just be looking for a culture change, but hoping to offload it entirely – or to ditch its £200m annual budget for original commissioning, in favour of a return to the dark old days under Richard Desmond when schedules were filled with reruns of US imports.
ITV has been busy ramping up excitement for The Hack, which tells how the Guardian journalist Nick Davies uncovered phone hacking at the News of the World in 2011. There are such high hopes that the drama will be the next Mr Bates vs the Post Office that Mr Bates (aka Toby Jones) appears as Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger. Also starring is Trainspotting's Robert Carlyle, who leads the inquiry into the murder of the private investigator Daniel Morgan – a case that remains unsolved and which raised serious questions about corrupt relationships between Met detectives and newspaper staff. 'Put it this way,' one former News of the World journo told me: 'if you thought the Trainspotting toilet scene was about swimming in shit, that's nothing compared with what went on in the Daniel Morgan case.'
Mentions on the BBC about the launch of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's temporarily named Your Party have largely been of the blink-and-you'll-miss-it variety. And yet the party already claims to have 650,000 sign ups – which rather casts shade on Reform UK's (admittedly paying) membership, currently 231,721. Still, Reform is assured bountiful BBC coverage if Farage so much as sneezes. BBC journalists are keen to reset what has been a fractious relationship with Corbyn, but grumble that how little air time he is permitted lies in editors' hands.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Further trouble for the broadcaster awaits,as yet more licence-fee money is being spent on another investigation by external lawyers. This time, tens of thousands are being earmarked to probe allegations that two Strictly Come Dancing stars were regularly taking cocaine while on the show. The investigation into the former newsreader Huw Edwards cost around £400,000 (plus another £1m for a review of complaints procedures) and £3.3m was spent investigating claims against DJ Tim Westwood. As one BBC journo put it: 'I've decided the only way I'll ever get a pay rise here is to retrain as an HR lawyer.'
Farewell, then, to MailOnline, the home of the sidebar of shame and 40-word headlines. The site is now to be known simply as Daily Mail – a nod to its print history. Although that is cold comfort for its few remaining staff who originated in print. 'The coup is now complete,' one said. 'It may now be called Daily Mail but we have been totally overtaken by the online staff. They know how to get the clicks, but they haven't got the first clue about how to find a proper story.'
Snout Line: Got a story? Write to tips@newstatesman.co.uk
[See also: Inside the factions of the new left]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Donald Trump's Nobel Prize delusion is both embarrassing and frankly dangerous'
As Donald Trump prepares to meet Vladimir Putin, renewed claims from his camp that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize have sparked outrage and ridicule. Christopher Bucktin is an award-winning journalist with more than 25 years of experience, the majority of which he has spent at the Daily Mirror. A former Press Gazette Reporter of the Year, he has held senior roles including Head of Features, Head of Showbusiness, and Head of Content, before relocating to the United States in 2013 to become US Editor. Renowned for breaking agenda-setting exclusives, he has reported from the front lines of America's biggest news stories, led investigations into the Trump administration, and exposed key details in the Jeffrey Epstein case. His career highlights include securing the first interview with the Peru Two inside prison, becoming the first journalist to descend into drug lord El Chapo's escape tunnel, and spearheading coverage of Prince Andrew's ties to Epstein. He holds weekly columns in the Daily Mirror, Daily Star and Reach's regional titles. As Donald Trump gears up for yet another ego-fuelled photo op with Vladimir Putin, his MAGA cheerleaders are out floating the idea that he should get the Nobel Peace Prize. It's not just delusional, it's reckless, embarrassing, and frankly dangerous. You only need to look at last week, when White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stood, straight-faced, and declared it was 'well past time' Trump received the honour to realise how shameless her pitch was. As if it's some overdue library book, and not the world's most respected peace accolade. You could almost hear the sound of Alfred Nobel rolling in his grave. Leavitt, never one to let facts get in the way of sycophancy, proudly declared Trump had 'brokered one peace deal or ceasefire per month' since his return to office in January. She then rattled off a list of 'conflicts' that sound more like the plotlines of a B-grade Netflix geopolitical thriller. Cambodia and Thailand. Serbia and Kosovo. Egypt and Ethiopia. And, the showstopper, India and Pakistan. Two nuclear powers whose animosity goes back decades. But sure, let's pretend Trump waltzed in and everyone just hugged it out. This isn't just the usual Trumpian peacocking, it's a full-blown delusion built on a foundation of ego, grudge, and a weirdly obsessive need to outshine Barack Obama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize back in 2009. A fact that clearly still haunts Trump like a ghost in the West Wing. But this isn't just about a bruised ego. It's about power. Image. Control. Trump's 'peace' strategy is a chaotic cocktail of tough-guy posturing, staged pressers, and alliances with strongmen that leave actual diplomacy in the dust. And then, just when you think the spin couldn't get any worse, Leavitt cited Iran, yes, the country Trump ordered military strikes on, as proof of his peacemaking credentials. In what twisted, alternate universe does bombing a nation qualify someone for the Peace Prize? Predictably missing from the highlight reel: Ukraine and Gaza. Trump has claimed, repeatedly, and with increasing desperation, that he could end the war in Ukraine 'on day one.' It's now been many months. And the war rages on. As for Gaza? American weapons keep flowing, civilian casualties pile up, and Trump? He's either asleep at the wheel or just doesn't care. As long as it doesn't cost him politically, he'll let others burn. Now comes the big Putin moment. The world would do well to pay attention. This is the same Trump who once publicly sided with Putin over his own intelligence agencies, called the Russian autocrat a 'genius' for invading Ukraine, and fawned over him like a fanboy at a dictator convention. If the Nobel Peace Prize is meant to reward those who bring people together, Trump isn't just undeserving; he's the antithesis. He's turned international diplomacy into reality TV, where the only thing that matters is airtime. If Trump really wants an award, give him a mirror. That way, he can finally talk to the only person he truly believes deserves one.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Too many men are dying': Cleverly backs Telegraph prostate cancer campaign
Sir James Cleverly has backed The Telegraph campaign for a national prostate cancer screening programme, warning that too many men are dying because of late diagnosis. The former home secretary is among several MPs calling for the introduction of targeted testing, saying those most at risk must be better protected. 'Caught early, prostate cancer can be successfully treated,' he said. 'But too many men are dying simply because their prostate cancer is caught too late.' Sir James, 55, now the shadow housing secretary, said: 'We know who is most at risk – black men, men over 50, and those with a family history – and we have the tools to do something about it. 'That's why I'm backing this campaign. A targeted national screening programme isn't just common sense – it's the right thing to do.' Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men with 55,000 diagnoses and 12,000 deaths annually. Black men are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer and twice as likely to die from it. Despite this there is no national screening programme. Health advisers are currently considering the evidence for the introduction of such screening, which could mean tests being offered to those with an increased risk of the disease, such as black men and those with a family history of prostate cancer. The intervention from MPs across all parties comes as The Telegraph campaigns for targeted national screening, with growing cross-party support in Parliament. Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has already thrown his weight behind the campaign. Today Calvin Bailey, Labour MP and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on prostate cancer, said 2025 'must be the year we finally act'. 'Too many men at high risk of prostate cancer – black men, those with a family history, and those with increased genetic risk – face a higher chance of developing the disease, yet remain underserved by the current system,' he said. 'With prostate cancer now the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK, the case for a national screening programme is urgent and overwhelming. 'We need to move from a passive to a proactive model – one where men are supported and no longer left to navigate risk and diagnosis alone. ' Supporting The Telegraph's campaign, and through the work of the cross-party APPG on Prostate Cancer, I'm proud to be pushing for evidence-led, equitable screening that can save lives, close the gap in outcomes and give every man the chance of an early diagnosis.' Both Sir James and Mr Bailey have spoken previously about how they had prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests because they were aware of their increased risks. Current guidance says says that men can ask GPs for a test, but family doctors are told not to proactively offer them to men without symptoms of cancer. Stuart Andrew, the shadow health secretary, said advances in screening technology create a real opportunity to detect the disease more easily and with a focused approach. He said: 'There's a real opportunity here to better detect prostate cancer more easily and with a more focused approach. 'Exploring the potential for a national screening approach could be an important step toward better outcomes for those at greatest risk.' Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat health and social care spokesman, said failing to introduce screening and improve treatment times would be a betrayal of cancer sufferers. 'Every year thousands of lives are shattered by a diagnosis of prostate cancer that comes far, far too late. 'Caught early enough prostate cancer is treatable, but without the tools in place, many men are slipping through the net. 'We need a national screening programme now to stop needless deaths and ensure every man who needs it can get life saving care. 'Cancer services are on their knees after years of neglect. The Government must implement screening programmes, guarantee treatment within 62 days, and recruit the cancer nurses we need. 'Anything less would be a betrayal of the thousands of families in this country who are struggling with inadequate, broken cancer care.' A government spokesman said: 'Prostate cancer can be devastating, which is why we are in the process of examining the introduction of targeted screening, but any decision must be evidence-led. 'That is why the UK National Screening Committee is looking at this as a priority – including reviewing the evidence for screening men with a family history of prostate cancer. 'As we await its conclusion, our 10 Year Health Plan is getting on with improving cancer treatment and prevention, including funding tens of millions of pounds of vital research to help diagnose patients faster and save lives.'
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
New research reveals ancestor of King Charles profited from slavery in Grenada
Grenada has vowed to step up its pursuit of an apology and reparations from King Charles after new research revealed that one of his ancestors personally profited from slavery on the Caribbean island. The research by independent scholar Desirée Baptiste shows that George IV, who ruled for a decade until 1830, received profits from enslaved labour on Grenadian plantations – a finding that experts say heightens pressure on the monarchy to confront its historical links to slavery. Baptiste found a 1823-24 document at the National Archives in London revealing a £1,000 ($1,343) payment – equivalent to around £103,132 ($138,490) today – from two Crown-owned estates in Grenada where hundreds of enslaved people laboured in the 18th and 19th centuries. The funds were paid into King George IV's private coffers, and contributed to his 'lavish lifestyle', said Baptiste, a researcher on colonialism and transatlantic slavery who has roots in Grenada. Arley Gill, the head of the Grenada Reparations Commission said: 'We always knew that the Royal Family directly profited from the Atlantic slave trade and slavery, but now that we know that the Royal Family directly profited from the state of Grenada, we renew our call, even stronger now, for the royal family to apologise and to pay reparations.' King Charles expressed sorrow over slavery in a speech to Commonwealth leaders in 2022, and last year, amidst calls for discussions on reparations at the Commonwealth leaders' summit, the monarch acknowledged the 'painful aspects' of Britain's past – but he did not directly address the thorny issue of reparations. Gill said the people of Grenada are calling on Charles to go further than vague expressions of regret, and make a full apology 'because blood is on the hands of the British royal family'. 'He is still the head of state of Grenada. And it will not be worthy of him to be the head of state of a country that he profited from in slavery and [for which he] failed to apologise and failed to make reparations. He will not be a worthy king,' Gill said. He argued the new revelations gave added urgency to efforts to remove the King as head of state in Grenada. Baptiste's research was verified by a University of Manchester professor, Edmond Smith, and Nick Draper, founder of University College London's Legacies of British Slave-ownership project. Smith, who is supervising a PhD study on the royal family's role in slavery, said as more evidence is uncovered the monarchy's profits from slavery will become clearer. He said this payment 'might well just be the tip of the iceberg'. Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond to a request for comment. King Charles has backed the study led by Smith, following a 2023 Guardian report revealing that in 1689 King William III received £1,000 ($1,343) in shares in the Royal African Company, which trafficked thousands of enslaved Africans to the Americas. 'This evidence fits with long-term patterns of colonial exploitation by the British royal family, including repeated efforts to find novel income streams from colonies in the Caribbean,' Smith told Reuters. Sign up to The Long Wave Nesrine Malik and Jason Okundaye deliver your weekly dose of Black life and culture from around the world after newsletter promotion Baptiste's research, from her independent study 'Slaves the Property of His Majesty: George IV and Grenada', comes amid growing global momentum for reparations for slavery, especially across the Caribbean and Africa. During the centuries-long transatlantic slave trade more than 12.5 million Africans were kidnapped and forcibly transported to the Americas, where they were sold into slavery. In July, Caribbean leaders backed a petition from Jamaica to King Charles on reparations, which asked the monarch to use his authority to request legal advice from the London-based privy council – the final court of appeal for UK overseas territories and some Commonwealth countries – on whether the forced transport of Africans to Jamaica was lawful, if it constituted a crime against humanity, and whether Britain was under obligation to provide a remedy to Jamaica for slavery and its enduring consequences. Keir Starmer's government has resisted discussions about the issue, with an official spokesperson saying last year, 'we do not pay reparations'. With reporting by Reuters.
