Latest news with #Spectator
The Independent
a day ago
- Business
- The Independent
GB News is starting to challenge the BBC for ratings – we should be worried
Listen to Laurence 'Lozza' Fox's dog whistle: 'You cannot hate them enough,' he posted on Elon Musk's X, in reaction to a carefully neutral breaking Sky News story about a car ploughing into Liverpool fans. And then: 'You cannot loathe or despise the state propaganda arm @ I understood Lozza to be signalling to his 600,000 followers that an establishment cover-up was happening in front of their eyes. 'They' were about to lie about the perpetrator. 'What is coming next is inevitable,' he posted moments later. I think he was anticipating riots on the streets. The man eventually charged with driving into the crowd is 53, white, and a former royal marine. Neighbours have been quoted calling him a 'nice family man'. There have been no riots. Park any thoughts of Lozza for the moment, and let us consider a major speech delivered at Oxford recently by Sir Paul Marshall. It was titled 'Reflections of a Reluctant Media Owner' and it sought to explain why an ultra-wealthy hedge fund manager ended up creating GB News, along with Unherd, a commentary platform, before acquiring the Spectator. His views command attention, if only because of his prediction that by 2028, the UK will have only two dominant news channels: the BBC and his own GB News, in which he has a 40 per cent stake, and which has lost more than £100m to date. Sir Paul's speech was a conventional-enough analysis of the British media landscape. He has noticed that most national newspapers tilt to the right. He shares the belief of those on the right that the BBC tilts to the left. It's all a bit tribal for him. He believes The Times, alone among newspapers, presents opinion pieces each day 'from all sides of the political spectrum.' This may surprise some its readers. His favourite word is 'heterodox'; his least favourite adjective is 'metropolitan.' When it comes to the BBC he believes that BBC Verify, a fact-checking unit, 'is frankly an abuse of taxpayer money and should be shut down.' In an ideal world the entire BBC – which he describes (just like Lozza!) as 'the propaganda arm of the state' – should be sold off. Failing that, it should be broken up. For Marshall, the BBC began to lose its way when – under Blair! – it stopped playing the national anthem on a daily basis: 'This is the point at which patriotism was quietly erased from its mission.' There are frustrating lacunae in the speech. Sir Paul does not, for instance, reflect on whether an ultra-wealthy hedge fund manager is well-placed to make fine judgements about impartiality or bias. If it is not to be hedge-fund managers, then who? But the most striking thing missing from Sir Paul's lecture is the gap between his analysis of what's wrong with the media and his answer: the creation of GB News. Here is a man who hates tribalism; says he likes his own biases to be challenged; and admires the 'open-minded centrist ground' represented by the Times. And who then thinks the answer is to create a monocultural TV channel representing every political view on a spectrum from Jacob Rees-Mogg to Lee Anderson via Nigel Farage and the Reclaim Party's 'leader', Laurence Fox? If you think the BBC is a bit lefty and iffy with the facts then why would you reach out for a cast which included the whacky cleric, Rev Calvin Robinson, Dan Wootton, Darren Grimes, former Reclaim candidates Leo Kearse and Martin Daubney, Brexit's Michelle Dewbury and climate change rubbisher Neil Oliver? What is the societal problem you're trying to fix with your investment in British television of tens of millions of pounds? Sir Paul is pleased with the ratings, which – as a rolling news channel with an energetic social media wing – sometimes nudge the BBC. I wonder if he's ever looked at surveys of trust, which regularly show the hated BBC outperforming all others – and trouncing GB News? YouGov in 2023 scored the BBC at net plus 23 compared with GB News on minus 15. Another YouGov poll the following year found 41 per cent trusting the BBC 'a great deal or a fair amount' against 24 per cent for GB News. The Reuters Institute Digital News Report finds that the BBC, at 62 per cent, is easily the most trusted news brand in the UK. GB News scores 29 per cent. Are all these people who trust the BBC's approach to journalism deluded? Is Sir Paul the only one who can see clearly? If he truly wished for better-informed citizens did he consider other uses for his riches? Has he, for instance, noticed the local newspaper industry gasping for breath as towns and neighbourhoods across the UK threaten to turn into news deserts? Did he really think hiring Laurence Fox (later sacked for misogyny) was the best response to the age of information chaos? As it happens, I get a name check in Sir Paul's speech. I am, apparently, one of the 'biggest advocates of censorship and control narrative' - up there with Hillary Clinton, Plato and the EU's Ursula von der Leyen. I take it this is because I'm a member of Meta's Oversight Board, which aims to protect free expression online while balancing it with possible harms. In most of our decisions, we actually vote to restore content to Meta's platforms that, in our view, has been mistakenly removed, but no matter. There are people who call themselves free speech absolutists, for whom any restraints amount to censorship. Elon Musk sails under that flag, as does Lozza. Sir Paul doesn't quite pinpoint where he himself sits. At one point he muses on the dangers of truth being sacrificed in favour of conspiracy theories and tribalism. And yet it feels that the point of GB News is precisely its tribal nature. One of the recent decisions by the Oversight Board related to the aftermath of the Southport killings when social media was widely used to spread disinformation about the ethnicity, religion and asylum status of the killer. More than that, it was used to whip up mob violence and hatred against Muslims. Real violence, real hatred. One of the posts which Meta left up called for mosques to be smashed and buildings where 'migrants,' 'terrorists' and 'scum' live to be set on fire. Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Northampton councillor, was controversially jailed for 31 months for posting something similar. Is it actually 'censorship' to want Meta to remove such posts? Is that an example of biased metropolitan elitism? The 'we-know-best' brigade? Or is it a responsible instinct for there to be limits on extremists who, in crowded theatres, shout 'Fire!' And Sky News and the BBC, with their restrained let's-stick-to-the-facts approach. Is that really (per Lozza) loathsome and despicable? Do you (per Sir Paul and Lozza) really think the BBC is the 'propaganda arm of the state' and should be sold off; or that BBC Verify is an 'abuse' and should be closed down? Who should make judgments about impartiality – ultra-wealth hedgies, or Ofcom? Who is in touch with the 'common sense centre ground' here, and who isn't? I do not wish to be mean about Sir Paul. I'm glad he founded Unherd. The Spectator remains a great magazine. He is a generous philanthropist. But, by his own account, he is on course to be a mini-Murdoch in the not-too-distant future. His views matter. But some of those views range from unformed to unsettling. Keep an eye on him.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Spectator
End of the rainbow, rising illiteracy & swimming pool etiquette
End of the rainbow: Pride's fall What 'started half a century ago as an afternoon's little march for lesbians and gay men', argues Gareth Roberts, became 'a jamboree not only of boring homosexuality' but 'anything else that its purveyors consider unconventional'. Yet now Reform-led councils are taking down Pride flags, Pride events are being cancelled due to lack of funds, and corporate sponsors are 'withdrawing their cold tootsies from the rainbow sock'. Has Pride suffered from conflation with 'genderism'? Gareth joined the podcast to discuss, alongside diversity consultant Simon Fanshawe, one of the six original co-founders of Stonewall. (0:59) Next: people are forgetting how to read Philip Womack 'can hear the rumblings of disaster, as if the foundations of western culture, eroded for decades, are teetering into collapse'. The reason? We are forgetting how to read. Today's children 'hardly read; their tech-blinded parents don't care; their teachers don't have the resources'. American students participating in a study requiring them to parse the first paragraph of Bleak House 'were unable to elicit a scintilla of sense' from Charles Dickens's prose. What or who is to blame? Philip joined the podcast to discuss. (23:29) And finally: the social minefield of swimming pool season Arabella Byrne writes in the magazine this week that while she has 'always loved English swimming pools', the arrival of the summer season always presents her 'with an annual etiquette conundrum'. If you're lucky enough to know one of the 200,000 Brits who have a private swimming pool, she asks: how acceptable is it – really – to ask to use a friend's pool? Arabella joined the podcast, alongside the Spectator's very own Dear Mary, Mary Killen. (32:46) Hosted by William Moore and Gus Carter. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Health
- Spectator
NHS Fife under fire over failure to reveal costs of trans tribunal
To NHS Fife, which is once again making headlines for all the wrong reasons. The Scottish health board has been slammed by the country's information tsar for failing to publish its spend on an ongoing employment tribunal brought against it by nurse Sandie Peggie. Whatever happened to transparency, eh? After nurse Peggie questioned a transgender doctor for using the female changing rooms, she was suspended by the Scottish health board. The move pushed her to bring a landmark tribunal against NHS Fife and Dr Beth Upton for harassment and discrimination and prompting heated discussion about what the Equality Act says about the provision of single-sex spaces. But when investigators approached the health board about the money spent on the tribunal, NHS Fife refused to be drawn – as the Spectator noted at the time. Instead, the Scottish health board said it had 'no indication of costs'. This hasn't satisfied Scottish Information Commissioner David Hamilton, however, who has ruled that NHS Fife has failed to comply with the law.
Spectator
3 days ago
- General
- Spectator
We're losing the ability to read
A recent American study, called 'They Don't Read Very Well', analyses the reading comprehension abilities of English literature students at two Midwestern universities. You may be surprised to discover that the title is not ironic. That they don't read very well is an understatement along the lines of Spike Milligan's 'I told you I was ill'. The study's subjects were given the first paragraph of Charles Dickens's Bleak House, and asked to read it out loud, parsing the sentences for meaning. A doddle, you'd think, for anyone reading Eng lit at a university. Well, you'd be wrong. Most participants were unable to elicit a scintilla of sense from Dickens's prose. It's as if, dumbfounded, they'd been confronted with Linear B. This study's findings feel existential. I can hear the rumblings of disaster, as if the foundations of western culture, eroded for decades, are teetering into collapse. It won't happen here, I hear you say. But across Britain, in our educational establishments, teachers gather in corners and murmur. A university colleague tells me that, in a seminar, a student described a Robert Frost poem as gibberish. 'A mouse could have read it,' he writes. 'A small, not especially confident, mouse.' Study after study points in the same grim direction. Children hardly read; their tech-blinded parents don't care; their teachers don't have the resources; and many think that making students read 'difficult' books is elitist. Here, then, is the Dickens passage in question. I'm assuming that Spectator readers will be familiar with it. Otherwise, duck and cover, kids. Your capabilities are about to be strained to the max: 'LONDON. Michaelmas term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln's Inn Hall.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Sadiq Khan's plan to decriminalise cannabis is dangerously divisive
Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, says he believes the police should stop arresting people for possessing cannabis. Frankly, I'm shocked. Mainly because I didn't know the police were arresting people for it in the first place. It certainly doesn't smell like it. These days, practically all our towns and cities – including the one run by Mr Khan – stink of weed. Which suggests that a very large number of people now feel able to smoke it with absolutely no fear of getting arrested. Whether this is because the police can no longer be bothered to enforce the law, or they're too busy carrying out dawn raids on the bookshelves of Spectator readers, I don't know. But either way, it hardly seems worth clamouring for decriminalisation, when in effect we've already got it. Even so, Mr Khan has backed calls to change the law. And these calls seem to have something to do with race. According to an independent commission, set up by the Mayor, the policing of cannabis use is shamefully unjust to people who aren't white. In a new report, the commission says: 'The law with respect to cannabis possession is experienced disproportionately by those from ethnic minority (excluding white minority) groups, particularly London's black communities. While more likely to be stopped and searched by police on suspicion of cannabis possession than white people, black Londoners are no more likely to be found carrying the drug.' If so, that plainly is unfair. But it's not an argument for decriminalisation. It's an argument for stopping and searching greater numbers of white people. Which, of course, would be completely fine. Go right ahead. Even if today's over-anxious police chiefs would probably misunderstand such an edict, and tell their officers: 'When investigating crime, we must never treat any community with more suspicion than any other. Which is why, this afternoon, I'm sending you all to a WI jumble sale, to search little old ladies for machetes.' None the less, the report maintains that the way forward is to decriminalise possession. At the same time, though, it says producing and dealing should remain illegal. Which is odd, because it implies that the blame for the trade lies solely with the people doing the latter. But if it weren't for all the people wishing to possess the drug, no one would produce or deal it. Ultimately, therefore, it's their fault. Anyway, if possession does get decriminalised, you can bet there'll soon be calls to loosen the law further. Which would be even more unwise. Just look at what's happened to New York, which in 2021 decided not only that people should be allowed to smoke cannabis, but that shops should be granted licences to sell it. Has this put criminals out of business, while raising lots of lovely extra cash through tax? Funnily enough, no. Illegal vendors simply undercut the legal ones. Kathy Hochul, who is New York's governor (and a Democrat, rather than some stereotypically stuffy Republican), has called it 'a disaster'. Even The New Yorker, proud tribune of liberal America, ran a dismayed article asking: 'What happened?' All the same, the Mayor of London insists that his commission's report makes a 'compelling' case. I don't think it does. And I especially think we could have done without the irrelevant wittering about ethnicity. We've got quite enough 'community tensions' in this country as it is. So we certainly don't want people thinking: 'What? They want to allow possession of a dangerous drug, just because they think it will improve 'police relations' with 'black communities'? That sounds awfully like special treatment. Mind you, I suppose they need to free up the cells, to make more space for middle-aged women who post problematic opinions on the internet.' This, in short, is why Mr Khan's plan for cannabis isn't just naive. It's dangerously divisive. I note, incidentally, that the Mayor has just proposed a 20 per cent rise in London's congestion charge. But don't worry. I've prepared a report arguing that the charge is unjust, because it's experienced disproportionately by the motoring community, while the cycling and walking communities get off scot-free. So the whole thing should be scrapped. Join Michael Deacon in the comments from 6pm Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
