GB News Scandal: The dossier

News must be reported with “due accuracy” and presented with “due impartiality.” Facts should be checked and significant errors corrected promptly and clearly. Viewers must not be misled, and broadcasters are expected to take reasonable steps to verify claims before they are aired.

The Code also requires due impartiality on major questions of public policy. “Due” does not mean every programme must give equal airtime to all sides, but significant viewpoints must be properly represented and coverage must not be misleadingly one-sided.

Impartiality may be achieved within a single programme, across a series, or across a broadcaster’s output over time.

The rules are stricter for news programmes than for other broadcasting: news must maintain impartiality at all times and clearly distinguish between factual reporting and opinion.

What we did:

The New World assembled a group of 20 senior journalists with experience at organisations including the Sunday Telegraph, the Spectator, the Times, the Observer, Granada TV, ITV News, BBC News, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Article, Prospect, the Economist, the Guardian, Archant, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, BuzzFeed, the Washington Post, Tortoise Media and GQ.

The group analysed 15 selected hours of GB News programming against Ofcom’s guidelines. Each programme was reviewed independently by two journalists and given a compliance rating from 0 (no compliance) to 5 (fully compliant).

Published here are condensed versions of those reports. The full findings will be submitted to Lisa Nandy, secretary of state for culture, media and sport, and to the relevant select committees in both the House of Commons and House of Lords.

Programme

Donald Trump interview with Bev Turner (November 15 2025)

Topics

• China’s use of wind power/Climate change

• Sadiq Khan’s London

• Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC

Guests

Donald J Trump President of the United States

Overview

The sole guest of this special was Trump, in a sit-down interview from the White House. No context or rebuttal was attempted by Turner, nor was there any attempt to present alternative views on matters of controversy. 

One reviewer said: “Trump was given free rein by the presenter… who singularly failed to challenge him on any of his contentions. Indeed, Turner revelled in her endorsement of his views, speaking of her ‘joy’ at his ‘truth bombs’. It was an exercise in deferential client journalism at its worst. As a case study in how not to conduct an interview, Bev Turner has provided a valuable example for generations of journalism students to come.”

Due Impartiality

• Turner heaped praise on Trump; for example: “I think it takes real backbone as a country’s leader to stand up in a room like you did in New York with the UN which was for me… it was one of the greatest moments … it was a joy to watch because you dropped so many truth bombs!”

• While it can be a legitimate journalistic technique to let a political interviewee talk freely in the expectation they will reveal themselves, it is never acceptable to let lies pass without correction or challenge. Not only did Turner allow this to happen, she made it clear she personally agreed with everything Trump was saying. 

Due Accuracy

• Trump claimed China does not use wind power. In reality, wind power accounts for more than 15% of China’s energy supplies. China accounts for two-thirds of all new global wind power capacity added in 2023. It has more than twice as much wind capacity under construction as the rest of the world combined. Trump’s demonstrably false and easily checked claims were not challenged, either during the interview or subsequently.

• Trump claimed, without evidence and in contrast to the vast majority of scientific consensus, that climate change is essentially a hoax. Turner agreed with him.

• Trump claimed sharia law is in force in London, and that the city has no-go zones. He also claimed that Sadiq Khan, mayor of London, was “letting crime go”. This is demonstrably false and went uncorrected or unchallenged by Turner. Instead, Turner said that the US – whose violent crime rates are across the board significantly higher than in the UK – “feels much safer”.

• When Trump claimed the BBC is a corrupt organisation, Turner empathised with him and thanked him for his lawsuit against the corpoation: “You’re doing it not just for you, because your feeling is ‘well, if they could misrepresent me in that way, they could misrepresent anybody.”

COMPLIANCE RATING 0/5

Programme

The Farage Show with Martin Daubney (January 22 2026)

Topics

• Migrant hotels and Crowborough military camp

• Andy Burnham and the Manchester by-election

• The Chagos Islands deal

• The “war” on British pubs

Guests

“Gaz” Crowborough resident and anti-migrant campaigner

Lord Glasman Labour peer and founder of Blue Labour

Sir Michael Ellis Former Conservative attorney-general

Allister Heath Editor, Sunday Telegraph

Rod Humphris Pub landlord

Overview

The programme featured a critical line towards Labour and recent government decisions, with little or no attempt to introduce opposing perspectives.

One reviewer said: “Across the programme the presenter reinforced arguments made by guests and did not challenge them. Discussions on immigration, the Manchester by-election and the Chagos Islands deal were all focused on perceived government failure, and the selection of contributors largely agreed with this perspective. In several segments the presenter actively guided guests towards particular conclusions or reinforced their criticisms.

“The programme repeatedly relied on anecdotal claims without introducing counter-arguments or contextual information.”

Due Impartiality

• The opening segment centred on claims that Crowborough residents were fearful of migrants being housed on a local military base. “Gaz” described families keeping children out of school and people being afraid to walk their dogs, though this was not contextualised or challenged. The presenter repeatedly suggested that residents might not be safe in their homes and gardens.

• The segment discussing Andy Burnham and the Manchester by-election consisted largely of the presenter and panellists agreeing that Labour had lost the confidence of working-class voters. The discussion focused exclusively on Labour’s loss of support, with no alternative perspective presented.

• Daubney opened the Chagos discussion with talk of the deal being “in chaos” and a British “surrender.” Heath called it a disaster for the UK and US, while Ellis called it a “disaster of biblical proportions.” There was no counter-argument or challenge.

• The final segment was framed around old footage of Keir Starmer being barred from a pub by Humphris, who described a “brutal war on pubs,” referring to the incident as a “genuine moment of glory.”

Due Accuracy

•It was claimed that increases in sexual assaults were linked to refugees and that migrants were not properly vetted before arrival. It was also suggested that the presence of refugees in Crowborough would place pressure on local health facilities and that there were no barriers preventing migrants from leaving the military site once transferred there. These assertions were presented without supporting evidence and were not challenged or contextualised. At the end of the segment, Daubney added a brief disclaimer that “nobody is saying that everyone in these camps is committing crimes.” This was the only attempt to qualify the earlier claims.

• A suggestion that France represented a security threat to the UK was made without evidence or challenge. 

• Claims that the Chagos agreement was “a legal fiction” and that Britain was now governed by “rule by lawyers” were not examined or challenged.

• Claims that one pub a day was closing due to government regulation, taxation and interference were not challenged or contextualised. 

• Daubney suggested that Britain had become an “authoritarian state”, without any evidence or challenge.

COMPLIANCE RATING 0/5

Programme 

The Farage Show (presented by Ben Leo) (January 1 2026)

Topics

• Immigration and small boats crossings 

• Reform UK’s political prospects 

• Labour’s economic record

• Inauguration of New York mayor Zohran Mamdani

Guests

Rob Bates Centre for Migration Control

Mark Field Former Conservative MP 

Fahima Mahomed Commentator and neurodivergence coach

James Frayne Political strategist

Jim Kennedy US Democratic consultant

Overview

The programme opened with an extended attack on the government’s handling of border control and asylum policy. Immigration was repeatedly presented as the central failure of modern British politics and the key reason for public anger with the political class.

Although the programme ranged across several political subjects, Leo repeatedly snapped the conversation back to immigration, frequently dominating exchanges, advancing his own arguments and dismissing any contrary opinion. Mahomed was occasionally allowed to attempt to present a counterview, but Leo repeatedly dismissed her views. 

One reviewer said: “Leo’s preoccupation with the notion of immigration being the root of all society’s problems infected the entire show. The programme was essentially a one-sided lambasting and demonisation of immigrants with next to nothing by way of effective balance.”

Due Impartiality

• Leo began the item by saying Labour’s policies were all “nonsense and BS”. Main guest Bates – a Reform volunteer working for an anti-migration think tank – said this analysis was “spot on”. Contrary to many predictions, Bates claimed immigration would go up in 2026 and was given five minutes to espouse this contentious view without any challenge or balance.

• Leo said asylum seekers should be locked up in “prisons or some kind of Nightingale warehouse” and talked over protests from Mahomed. He later suggested that illegal migrants shoud be tagged so “at least we know where they are”. When Mahomed said that “tagging is for criminals”, Leo replied, “well, they broke into the country.”  He loudly declares Mahomed’s opinion that they are not necessarily criminals as “nonsense.”

• When Mahomed argued that Leo should not use “blanket terms” because many of the asylum seekers are genuine, he cut her off to say “That’s nonsense. They’re economic migrants. They’re from north Africa. They’re fleeing places where there is no war at all.” He concluded the segment by saying “and if they ARE fleeing a war, what does that say about the character of that man that he’s left their wives and their children behind?” 

• The swearing-in of New York’s new mayor became a one-sided discussion about religion and identity. The fact that Zohran Mamdani was sworn in on a Qur’an (standard for a Muslim politician both in the UK and the US) was framed as a departure from national Christian values without effective challenge. Leo stated that Mamdani “shuns the Bible” and “bangs on” about being a Muslim. 

Due Accuracy

• Ben Leo repeatedly asserted that the UK’s decline in GDP/capita is solely caused by “an explosion in immigration”. This is wildly misleading. The global economic crash of 2008 was not even mentioned. 

• Leo claimed “2.4m illegals” were deported from the US in the first year of Trump’s second term. The likely figure of deportations is around 230k to 350k, with an unknown number of people also leaving voluntarily. Leo was using misleading White House claims without attribution or verification.

• Leo repeated without challenge a Trump claim that up to 25 million “illegals” had flooded through the southern border under Joe Biden’s administration. The fact-checked figure is around 4.2 million.

• Another claim concerned the legality of entering the UK by small boat. Leo asserted that such arrivals are illegal under the Immigration Act. This is not true and fails to recognise the legal right to claim asylum.

• Leo repeatedly claimed that “foreign nationals make up £10bn of welfare payments in this country,” describing this as “obscene by anyone’s standards”. This is misleading and inaccurate. A significant proportion of those welfare claims are made by naturalised citizens. Evidence that migration is a significant net positive to the British economy was ignored totally.

COMPLIANCE RATING 1/5

Programme

Matt Goodwin (January 23 2026)

Topics

•Is Europe falling apart?

• Islamist fighters arriving on small boats

• Migrant protests in Crowborough

• Refugee sexual assaults in the Netherlands

• Forthcoming Gorton and Denton by-election

Guests

Poppy Coburn Associate editor, Daily Telegraph

James Glancy Former Brexit Party MEP

Laurie Wastell Assistant editor, the Daily Sceptic

Cai Wilshaw PR consultant

Overview

With the exception of breaking news about Chagos, every topic discussed was brought back to illegal migration. The overall balance of the programme – in its choice of topics, framing of discussion, selection of guests and treatment of dissenting voices – was heavily tilted to the right. 

One reviewer said: “The editorial framing was not impartial. The programme was mono-themed around an issue that is a longstanding preoccupation of Goodwin and also the central policy focus of Reform UK. The only meaningful counterview was provided by Wilshaw, whose interventions were repeatedly interrupted or dismissed by Goodwin.”

Due Impartiality

• Glancy claimed that “European white populations in a number of cities have become minorities.” This is highly contested and misleading and these statements presented as fact went unchallenged by Goodwin. Glancy added that there was “no consent for mass replacement immigration,” a thinly coded reference to the conspiracy known as the Great Replacement Theory. Goodwin offered no challenge or corrective comment.

• Goodwin agreed with Donald Trump’s claim that Europe has become “unrecognisable,” adding that he believed the continent is experiencing “civilisational erasure.”

Coburn reinforced this argument, claiming Europe is “being undermined by these foreign elements in society.”

Wilshaw was not invited to respond to these claims. The segment ended with Goodwin, Glancy and Coburn aligned in agreement on the assertion that Europe’s population was being replaced.

• Coburn mocked local Green politicians for supporting a plan to house 500 unaccompanied male migrants in Crowborough. She incorrectly identified Rachel Millward as the local MP and claimed the Green Party supports the proposal. Coburn stated she had followed the story closely, yet what she said misrepresented the Green Party’s position entirely. Both Millward and the actual MP, Nusrat Ghani, have consistently opposed the proposal.

Goodwin did not challenge this inaccuracy. Instead, he reinforced the false claim, saying: “This is, of course, a Green Party that wants open borders.”

• When Wilshaw was brought into the discussion, he suggested that the outcome of moving asylum seekers from hotels into camps was precisely what Goodwin had been advocating. He was interrupted and shut down by Goodwin, who returned to Coburn to continue criticising the policy. Goodwin then interviewed a local resident whose views closely echoed those expressed by Coburn and the presenter.

• Two brief government statements were read out. Goodwin responded sarcastically: “Well, there you go.” After the break, three viewer comments were read out, all of which supported Goodwin’s position.

• Goodwin introduced a report of dozens of sexual assaults against students by migrants in the Netherlands before claiming: “It’s happening over here too.” He added: “Mass migration into Britain has seen serious crimes like rape and sexual assault surge,” and referred to the conviction of 20 migrants for “a serious crime” on January 26. When Wilshaw challenged this framing, saying Goodwin was highlighting a small number of cases among roughly 1.5m criminal convictions in the UK each year, Goodwin repeatedly interrupted and shouted over him.

• Goodwin cited a survey by Rob Bates of the Centre for Migration Control, an anti-migration organisation. Addressing Wilshaw directly, he said: “When we give you evidence, you continually refuse to accept the reality we have to live with.” Goodwin continued to shout over Wilshaw and refused to give him comparable airtime to Coburn, who supported the presenter’s position throughout. Later in the segment, Goodwin turned his back on Wilshaw with visible contempt and asked Coburn if she agreed with his position. She did.

• At the time of broadcast, Goodwin had an undeclared formal relationship with Reform UK. Four days after transmission, he was announced as the party’s candidate for Gorton and Denton.

Due Accuracy

• Glancy’s claim that white European populations have become minorities in certain major cities was false. There is no European city in which the native population is a minority. This assertion – echoing the Great Replacement conspiracy theory – was neither challenged nor corrected.

• Coburn’s claim that Green politician Rachel Millward (incorrectly described as the local MP) supported housing 500 migrants in Crowborough was also false. Millward has consistently opposed the proposal. Coburn further claimed that Millward had said she feared local residents might attack migrants and that she should instead worry about migrants attacking residents. There is no public record of Millward making such a statement.

COMPLIANCE RATING 1/5

Programme 

Nigel Farage (January 14 2026)

Topics

• Craig Guildford’s position as chief constable of West Midlands police

• The Online Safety Act and private messaging

• Wind farms

• Pub “tax raid”

Guests

Geoff Hoon Labour defence secretary under Tony Blair

Kwasi Kwarteng Chancellor for 38 days under Liz Truss

Jonny Gould Journalist, Aston Villa fan, member of Birmingham’s Jewish community

Luke Sullivan Keir Starmer’s political director 2021-24

Lord Frost Former Brexit negotiator under Boris Johnson

Overview

The main section of the Reform leader’s show discussed Guildford, who was soon to retire after criticism of his policing decisions before a football match between Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv. The segment featured unchallenged, demonising claims by Nigel Farage about the Muslim community, which was not represented. Elsewhere, it seemed clear that the programme makers and Farage himself were making some effort to comply with the Ofcom code – in Hoon, the programme had a notionally pro-Labour voice who was much less strident than Kwarteng, Frost and Gould on the opposite side. 

One reviewer said: “The programme offered propaganda dressed up as a panel show. Those watching would have come away in little doubt that the government is leaving pro-Islamist police chiefs in place; that it is surveilling your WhatsApp messages; that green energy is doomed and that pubs are being systematically attacked.”

Due Impartiality

• In the opening and main segment, Farage repeatedly referred to as malign “Islamist influences” in Birmingham, without any balancing voices from the city’s Muslim community, or statements on their behalf. 

• A clip of Guildford addressing Muslim elders was misleadingly framed by Farage as partiality to the Muslim community, with no sense offered of the context of legitimate fear and alarm at the far right presence and rioting in (for example) Tamworth and Birmingham that would have been felt at the time. Farage also said the following, unchallenged:

•“If you pander to one particular section, if you basically tell them they have special protections – guess what – some of them start to behave badly because a couple of weeks later these were the scenes in Birmingham.” (This was followed by shots of masked men shouting “Free Palestine”); and:

• “I spoke yesterday, Jonny, to a senior business figure from the West Midlands who suggested to me that throughout the police force, throughout the education system in the West Midlands that actually there are some pretty extreme Islamist influences that buried themselves pretty deep into our structures.”

• Elsewhere, the programme makers allowed guests and host to deviate from the subjects under discussion into wider, mainly unchallenged rants against the government.

Due Accuracy

• Part of the discussion on Guildford centred on the fact that chief constables could only be dismissed by police and crime commissioners. But it omitted a crucial detail – that the government announced their abolition in November 2025 and was preparing to bring the power to dismiss chief constables under ministerial control. The viewer was left with the firm impression that the commissioners are still in place and that the problem was not being dealt with. This was deeply misleading.

• Farage claimed that the logic of the Online Safety Act was that “we should put listening devices in pubs”. This went unchallenged, no one pointing out that the whole discussion was based on the capacity of government to read encrypted messages. The technology to do this does not exist, so again, this was deeply misleading.

COMPLIANCE RATING 1/5

Programme

Martin Daubney (January 12 2026)

Topics

• Nadhim Zahawi defects to Reform

• Possible EU/UK treaty

• Ofcom investigation into X over Grok’s sexualised images of women and children

• Riots and killings in Iran 

• Possible return to UK of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Guests

Christopher Hope GB News political editor

Catherine McBride Brexiteer economist at the Centre for Brexit Policy

Sam Armstrong Of the right-leaning Free Speech Union

Philip Ingram Defence and security expert

Cameron Walker GB News royal correspondent

Overview

A programme hosted by a former Brexit Party MEP that led with a defection to that party’s new incarnation, Reform, before moving on to Brexit and free speech, did not platform any left-leaning guests. Instead Hope, formerly of the Daily Telegraph, gave a single-sentence counter to some of the assertions made by Daubney and guests.

One reviewer said: “The programme was seriously imbalanced. Throughout it, Daubney repeatedly made polemical statements reflecting his own political viewpoint, without any serious expression of opposing views. Hope offered a gesture at balance, but certainly not sufficient to correct the overall bias.”

 Due Impartiality

• In the discussion of Zahawi’s defection to the Reform Party, Daubney dismissed the reasons for which he was sacked from the Tory Party, asking, rhetorically, “who cares?” Zahawi was sacked for failing to disclose that HMRC was investigating his tax affairs.

• In discussing Labour’s agriculture deal with the EU, Daubney said that Keir Starmer planned to “surrender” to Europe. McBride was then given five minutes to attack the government’s position, during which she made a string of unchallenged assertions. Towards the end of the segment, Hope was given 30 seconds to put the government’s point of view. Daubney concluded the discussion by saying “I love the smell of Brexit in the morning,” a reference to the mad, napalm-obsessed colonel in Apocalypse Now. 

Due Accuracy

• In the discussion of Labour and Europe, McBride claimed that the government is “pretending that it’s going to lower prices, but it’s only going to lower prices for large supermarkets”. She also claimed that “Starmer wants to send money to Brussels”. She provided no evidence for this, and was not challenged by Daubney.

• In the discussion of Iran, Daubney stated that, before the Islamic revolution, the country was a “prosperous, democratic nation” where women could wear bikinis and businessmen could make money. That is inaccurate. It was an authoritarian monarchy under the Shah until 1979. His expert, Ingram, did not pick him up on that, but merely said it was to be hoped that Iran could return to a time when it made “a secular contribution”. 

• Ingram argued that the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and the Muslim Brotherhood should be banned in Britain, particularly in terms of pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Ingram said that people at those demonstrations didn’t realise that they were being manipulated. No evidence was given of any manipulation of UK protesters by foreign groups. No one challenged this statement.

• Armstrong, a former Tory aide, spent seven minutes claiming, without evidence, that the Ofcom investigation into X was a Labour attack on a platform with which it disagreed. Daubney did not challenge the assertion that the government directly controls what Ofcom does. He said: “What sticks in my craw is that there are other AI tools that can also put people in bikinis”. But this was not what X was under investigation for; instead the Grok AI tool was being used to mass-produce partially nude fake images of girls and women while the standalone Grok app was also used to generate sexualised deepfakes.

COMPLIANCE RATING 1/5

Programme

The Late Show Live with Beverley Turner (January 7 2026)

Topics

• ICE in Minneapolis, after the killing of Renee Good

• Venezuela: White House “infuriated by weak Britain”

• UK helps US seize Russian oil tanker

• Trump threats to take Greenland

Guests

Jennifer Ewing US political commentator; Republicans Overseas spokesperson

Chapman Bell London-based US freelance journalist 

Tim Doescher Executive director of right wing think tank Unleash Prosperity

Rob Crilly Chief US correspondent of the Daily Telegraph

Nigel Nelson Senior political correspondent of GB News 

Douglas Macgregor Retired US Army colonel 

Nile Gardiner Former adviser to Baroness Thatcher 

Overview

A show broadcast live from Washington DC dealt with the fatal shooting of a protester by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.Aside from the airing of a clip of Minneapolis’s Democrat mayor, no dissenting view was given to the pro-ICE narrative of host Turner and guests Ewing and Doescher. 

One reviewer said: “The first segment offered a line-up of largely right-leaning guests and a host of issues over impartiality, accuracy and lack of challenge to misleading statements. Other sections of the show – including a range of opinions on Trump and Greenland – were more balanced, although the political leanings of the guests meant that, for example, there was more praise for Donald Trump’s mastery of foreign policy than a regular news programme would have offered.”

Due Impartiality

• On the killing of Renee Good, Turner and her guests agreed that her shooting was justified. Comments included: Doescher: “All you have to do is look at the video – the guy was in front of the car, the agent was in front of the car as it was coming toward him. That right there – that alone is her abruptly accelerating toward him, him defending himself and the other people around in a very cold, icy, snowy situation. Look, you can defend it all you want, but if you’re behind the wheel of a car, you’re responsible for what happens in that car.” Turner: “Yeah.”

Ewing on Good: “You should have stopped the car”.

• The only attempt at balance was a clip of Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey calling ICE’s account of the shooting “bullshit”, but this was quickly decided by Turner and guests to be biased and therefore unreliable.

• Host and guests’ suggestion that Frey was using Good’s death to distract from local difficulties and bash Donald Trump was presented as unarguable. Comments included:

Ewing: “I just can’t help but think that this is a very, very convenient diversion from what was, last week, the biggest unveiling of fraud in Minneapolis and the governor is implicated in that.” Turner: “Of course. Right.” 

Ewing: “People who are against Trump are going to play up” situations like this.

Turner: “The mayor there, using this issue to make political capital, saying ‘we’ve been waiting for this’.” 

Doescher: “They want to disrupt what the president is doing. Let’s make no mistake about this. This is a complete and total protest against Trump winning the election last year. So let’s just keep that in mind as we process this… it’s the mayor and it’s the governor and it’s the former president stoking up and then getting in the way of legitimate law-enforcement business, which is an offence here in the United States of America.”

Due Accuracy

• Doescher’s description of the ICE shooting video (“the agent was in front of the car as it was coming toward him… her abruptly accelerating toward him”) was deeply misleading but not challenged or corrected. The footage was not shown for the audience to assess for themselves.

• Ewing’s contentious view of Frey’s statement as a distraction from fraud in Minneapolis was not only not challenged by Turner, but the host agreed with it. 

• Video of a statement by then Department of Homeland Security director Kristi Noem was shown; this contained multiple falsehoods and was not challenged.

COMPLIANCE RATING 2/5

Programme 

Friday Night with Matt Goodwin (January 9 2026)

Topics

• UAE’s funding cut for students coming to the UK, over Islamist radicalisation concerns

• UK threat to “ban” X over Grok’s sexualised images

• Labour’s U-turn over taxes on pubs

• Police chief under fire after Maccabi Tel Aviv fan ban

Guests

Ellie Wheatley Senior reporter at Guido Fawkes

Cai Wilshaw Left-leaning political commentator 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Islam-critical right-leaning writer

Toby Young Tory peer

Emma Schubart Of right wing think tank the Adam Smith Institute, here billed as “a counter extremism researcher”

Overview

Goodwin’s talking points included the supposed “infiltration” of institutions of the British state by the Muslim Brotherhood and the threat posed by the “Marxist-communist left”. In the case of the Maccabi Tel Aviv story, in which fans of that Israeli football club were banned from watching their team play in a UK fixture, Goodwin claimed there were “links” between West Midlands police and local Muslim “preachers who have made some pretty unsavoury remarks concerning the rights of women”. 

One reviewer said: “It was clear from the outset that the presenter was not only promoting ideas that he believed in personally, but that he expected his guests to agree with him on all points. The overall impression made by the programme was that Britain is a nation being actively undermined by the left, that Muslims were being given an easy ride and that free speech was under threat from the government.”

Due Impartiality

• The only one of five guests who was left-leaning, Wilshaw’s presence was clearly intended to create the impression of balance. He was the only one to challenge some of the assertions made, but was given much less time to speak than other guests. He was the only guest interrupted by Goodwin.

• In relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv story, and Goodwin’s repeated insinuations about the police force, which at one point he said was “institutionally suspect”, Goodwin read out “a previous statement” from West Midlands police, which seemed a gesture towards balance. The statement did not relate to any of the claims of antisemitism made by Goodwin. It did not provide any substantial balance to a discussion that was entirely one-sided.

• Goodwin made persistent positive comments about the Reform Party and its positions on the issues discussed in the course of the show without making clear that he was a Reform member (he has since stood as a Reform by-election candidate). 

Due Accuracy

• In the discussion about the creation of sexualised images of children using Grok, X’s AI function, Wheatley claimed this was “not a new problem, it’s just a new tool” and compared it to the photo-editing software “Photoshop”. This was a misleading comparison. Photoshop is not a social media platform, and cannot create sexualised images of children without intervention other than a prompt. Young claimed, falsely, that “every AI” can make sexualised images of children. Neither claim was challenged by Goodwin.

• The programme was relentlessly anti-Labour. At one point, during the discussion of child sexual images on X, Goodwin referred to Labour as “one of the most authoritarian governments this country has seen in a long time”, without context or challenge. Wheatley, who agreed with Goodwin on everything throughout the show, suggested that “Starmer will get Ofcom to do his dirty work for him,” by issuing fines to X. This implication, that the prime minister corruptly controls media regulation, was not challenged by Goodwin. 

• Young claimed that the government was only trying to shut X down because its owner, Elon Musk, is ideologically opposed to Labour’s views. This claim was not challenged by Goodwin.

• Schubart described violence between Dutch and Israeli football supporters in 2004 as a “pogrom”. Five Maccabi fans were hospitalised, and several of their attackers jailed, but “pogrom” is an overstatement that was not challenged by Goodwin.

COMPLIANCE RATING 2/5

Programme 

Tom Harwood & Nana Akua (January 12 2026)

Topics

• Nadhim Zahawi’s defection to Reform

• Lights out Britain? Report claiming UK may face power rationing/cuts

• Surprise farmer blockade at three food distribution centres, over “farm tax”

Guests

James Heale Spectator journalist

Katherine Forster GB News correspondent

George Finch Reform leader of Warwickshire county council

Claire Coutinho Shadow secretary for energy security/net zero

Ed Pritchard Leader of anti-government farm tax protest

Overview

A programme that discussed Reform-Tory intrigue and anti-Labour sentiment on net zero and farm tax featured no guests from the left or centre in an entire hour of broadcasting.

One reviewer said: “At times, it veered towards a Reform love-in. Opportunities to challenge right wing narratives – or even to explore other perspectives – were avoided. A 25-second government rebuttal statement, read at the end of a six-minute interview with Tory shadow minister Claire Coutinho, provided the sole brief moment of dissent.”

Due Impartiality

• The former Tory’s defection was hailed as a triumph for Nigel Farage by presenter Nana Akua. (“It was quite an incredible speech… This is the sort of heavy hitter you want… him joining adds more credibility to Reform”). There was no mention of the tax issues that saw Zahawi sacked from government, and his 2015 tweet calling Farage racist was dealt with quickly, with Akua suggesting that Zahawi’s arrival proved they were not racist at all.

• Coutinho promoted a report by “the excellent Katherine Porter, who’s a real energy expert and has done her own analysis”. Porter, who works with fossil fuel firms, has been accused by the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero of peddling “nonsense scaremongering”.

• As George Finch, Reform’s 19-year-old leader of Warwickshire council, boasted of his party’s achievements in local government, presenter Tom Harwood could be seen appearing to nod approvingly. Harwood ended the segment by inviting Finch back on to discuss his plans to cut free school transport for poorer children, seeming to add his approval: “You’ve made some bold political statements on that and it is quite refreshing to hear”. 

• The farm segment began with unchallenged commentary by Akua: “Farmers are at breaking point… despite government claims of listening, anger in the countryside is clearly boiling over”. There was no discussion of why farmers should be exempt from inheritance tax when everyone else is not. A discussion of farmers’ proposals for tariffs on imported food was aborted because of a defective line, so other perspectives may have followed.

Due Accuracy

• Akua read out Zahawi’s defection speech, including his unchallenged assertion that there are “radical Islamists waiting in the wings to supplant this current Labour government.”

• When a clip was played of Forster asking Zahawi a question, Akua summed up his response as: “Nadhim Zahawi saying there aren’t any issues of racism in the party at all”. This was misleading; what we’d just seen Zahawi saying was that if he believed Farage was a racist, he wouldn’t be sitting next to him.

• Coutinho implied, without challenge, that a sustainable energy network is useless when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind does not blow: “You can turn on (gas power) when you need to use it. Now, that’s just not the same with wind and solar. You can’t decide when the wind blows. You can’t decide when the sun shines. Today, I think we’ve got about 40% of our power coming from wind and solar. But three days ago, it was 16%. Now, as everyone can remember, it was very cold a few days ago. We didn’t control that. So, what is really important for energy security is to have something that you can turn up and down as and when you need it.”  This was misleading and ignores wind/solar energy stored in batteries, as well as other forms of sustainable energy that fill in when wind and solar provide less power. 

• A very brief mention from Akua to Finch about Reform’s local government squabbles and council tax hikes was knocked back with “we haven’t done that”. That is not borne out by facts about rows and rises.

COMPLIANCE RATING 2/5

Programme

Jacob Rees-Mogg: State of the Nation (January 15 2026)

Topics

• Robert Jenrick’s Reform defection

• Is the “turquoise tidal wave” about to hit Labour?

• Does Trump have a plan for Iran?

• Latest UK abortion statistics show record numbers

Guests

Darren Grimes Reform deputy leader, Durham County Council

Trevor Kavanagh Former Sun political editor 

James Johnson Pollster, JL Partners

Benjamin Butterworth Left-leaning journalist 

Hadley Gamble US journalist and commentator

Ann Furedi Abortion rights campaigner

Overview

The programme, which is prefaced by a lengthy personal monologue from Rees Mogg – the “Moggologue” – was dominated by right wing talking points and the latest intrigues involving right wing parties. A discussion of a possible Reform/Tory pact featured guests representing different parts of the right, but no commentators from the centre or left. This significantly narrowed the debate.

Our reviewer said: “The programme’s biggest problems came in the section on abortion, a topic on which the Catholic Rees-Mogg feels strongly. While an abortion rights campaigner was given time to make her points in full, Rees-Mogg closed the programme by saying: ‘Let us pray for the souls of the holy innocents, those 300,000 children who were killed unborn in 2023.’” 

Due Impartiality

• Arguably the show’s best segment was the discussion of Robert Jenrick’s defection from the Tories to Reform. Rees-Mogg challenged the Reform guest on whether the party was “becoming a twilight home for superannuated Tories worried about their seats”. Yet there was no guest who represented the views of the political centre or left. 

• Rees-Mogg is a well-known abortion opponent and his questions to Furedi reflected his beliefs: “Is it time for a fundamental change to the law to protect life, women and dignity?” and “These numbers are terrifying aren’t they, that nearly 300,000 lives were terminated?”

Due Accuracy

• In a discussion of the killing of anti-government demonstrators in Iran, Rees-Mogg asked: “Why is the political left so concerned about Gaza and Palestinians, yet unconcerned that Iranians are living under a deeply oppressive regime?” This remark about “the political left” was challenged by Butterworth. But the sweeping statement casting the left as morally compromised was not backed up with examples or any evidence.

• In the discussion on abortion, Rees-Mogg made a string of misleading statements, including that medicines to terminate pregnancies are “being sent to people… without actually necessarily having that proper conversation with a doctor.” He provided no evidence to support any of this. 

• At another point in the interview, he stated: “It can’t be a good thing that abortion becomes a means of contraception. That it is, apart from anything else, destroying a life that has been created, but also the risks increase, don’t they? For women [to] have abortions as opposed to those who use contraceptive devices?” Furedi responded to this series of statements by saying that evidence shows abortion is a very safe procedure. Rees-Mogg cut her off, saying they had run out of time.

COMPLIANCE RATING 2/5

Programme

Dewbs & Co with Michelle Dewberry (January 21 2026)

Topics

•  Trump at Davos

•  Immigration

•  Inflation

• New Chinese embassy

• Cancelled local elections

• Numbers on Universal Credit not required to seek work

Guests

Zia Yusuf Head of policy and former chairman of Reform

Stuart Fawcett Labour councillor, NE Derbyshire District Council

Overview

The programme was overwhelmingly aligned with the arguments advanced by Yusuf. He opened three of the four main discussions and introduced a wide range of Reform talking points, including immigration, net zero, the Chagos deal and a proposed Chinese embassy in London. 

One reviewer said: “Dewberry rarely interrupted Yusuf, but when she did it was largely to reinforce Yusuf’s criticisms of the government while pressing or dismissing the other guest. Fawcett attempted to defend government policy, but struggled to respond to the volume and range of claims. Dewberry repeatedly interrupted him and pressed him for shorter answers – at one point telling him to ‘get on with it’. In contrast, Dewberry allowed Yusuf to speak at length. She also allowed him to interrupt. Viewer comments critical of the government were frequently read out during the discussion, reinforcing the programme’s framing.”

Due Impartiality

• The only meaningful gesture towards balance was the presence of a Labour councillor in the studio. But in practice the discussion was dominated by Yusuf, who was invited to open most topics and was given extended time to introduce Reform talking points. Yusuf frequently spoke over Fawcett without intervention from the presenter.

• Throughout the programme, Yusuf introduced multiple Reform campaign arguments, often unrelated to the immediate topic under discussion and not challenged or examined by the presenter.

Due Accuracy

• Yusuf claimed that “tens of thousands of military age men” from “countries that hate us” were arriving on Britain’s beaches. The claim was repeated later in the programme. Neither the presenter nor the other guest challenged the implication that asylum seekers arriving by small boat are hostile to Britain.

• Yusuf asserted that Islamist extremism had created a “de facto coup d’état” when a parliamentary vote was withdrawn after MPs received threats. This was a partial description of a decision taken by the speaker of the Commons during a Gaza debate in February 2024. The claim was not challenged during the programme.

• The programme discussed the number of Universal Credit claimants not required to seek work and cited a figure of 4.5 million. The Department for Work and Pensions estimate is approximately 4.1 million. The discrepancy was not acknowledged or corrected.

• Yusuf claimed that Labour “loves illegal migration” and does not want to deport people, while again characterising small-boat arrivals as “military-age men” from “countries that hate us”. The presenter did not challenge the claim and instead responded that she would have had the Navy in the Channel “a long time ago”.

COMPLIANCE RATING 2/5

Programme 

Dewbs & Co with Michelle Dewberry (January 26 2026)

Topics

• Suella Braverman’s defection to Reform

• Labour’s block on Andy Burnham in Gorton and Denton

• Government plans for a British FBI

• Is political debate on social media skewed by bots?

Guests

Zia Yusuf Head of policy for Reform UK

Sir Bernard Jenkin Conservative MP

Suella Braverman Former Conservative home secretary, now Reform MP

Christopher Hope GB News political editor

Samantha Niblett Labour MP

Overview

Without a segment discussing migration and with a Labour MP as one of the panellists, the programme offered a different feel to much of the channel’s output. Yet although different viewpoints were given airtime, there was a material imbalance in favour of pro-Reform views, both in the lengthy contributions of Yusuf and Dewberry as well as the uncritical interview with Braverman by Hope.

One reviewer said: “During the first 24 minutes of the programme, Samantha Niblett, the Labour MP, got to speak for only 52 seconds. The Braverman interview was sympathetic to the point it went beyond journalistic impartiality.”

Due Impartiality

• Dewberry put challenging questions to both Tory MP Jenkin and Labour MP Niblett, but avoided any line of challenge to Yusuf. The obvious line of questioning about Reform bringing on Tories whose policies they had previously attacked went unasked.

• Throughout the programme, Dewberry read out multiple emails from viewers, all uniformly supportive of Reform. This could be an accurate reflection of the channel’s viewership, but the letters magnified the programme’s already partisan feel.

• A number of times, the presenter spoke on behalf of her audience, sharing what she intuited would be their pro-Reform sentiments: “Many people are watching this programme, they’ll all be shouting at their screens and radios now, saying it’s not about leaving the [Conservative] Party, it’s about the party leaving them.”

• At no point during their interview did Hope challenge Braverman on her record in government or responsibility for the policies for which Reform now blames the Tories.

Due Accuracy

• Yusuf said knife crime was totally out of control. However, according to the ONS, there were around 53,000 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument in the year ending March 2025. This was 1% lower than in 2023-24 and 3.8% lower than 2019-20. Neither the presenter nor Niblett added this useful context.

COMPLIANCE RATING 2/5

Programme 

Patrick Christys Tonight (January 27 2026)

Topics

• Rwanda’s legal claim over abandoned asylum scheme

• Keir Starmer’s historic work prosecuting British army veterans

• Is Net Zero costing jobs in the energy sector?

• Should the government shut down “Iran-backed” London school

Guests

Will Kingston GB News presenter

Orla Minihane Reform candidate and Epping asylum hotel protester

Jonathan Lis Journalist and former deputy director of pro-EU think tank British Influence

Claire Coutinho Conservative shadow energy secretary

Tom Pursglove Former Conservative immigration minister

Paul Scott Head of security and extremism at right wing think tank Policy Exchange

Donnachadh McCarthy Director of Climate Media Coalition

Steven Barrett Barrister and journalist

Overview

The programme was consistently framed in strongly critical terms towards immigration, Keir Starmer and government policy across several areas, including migration, judicial procedures, energy policy and foreign relations.

One reviewer said: “From the outset, Christys adopted a combative tone. Critical commentary and gestures frequently accompanied the introduction of stories, often supported by provocative video clips. Immigration in particular was presented as a national crisis. At one point, the presenter described developments during the day as a ‘catastrophic day for anyone who cares about Britain’s borders’.

Several unrelated items were linked together to reinforce this framing: a judge refusing to inform a jury that a rape defendant was an asylum seeker, the Rwandan government suing the UK over the migration deal, and a French human rights group criticising French actions against migrants. Christys described this collection as ‘all that mental migrant news in just one day’.”

Due Impartiality

• The opening discussion focused on a case in which a defendant accused of rape was not identified to a jury as an asylum seeker. The presenter asked panellists whether authorities had been right to “essentially hide” that information.

• Panellists Kingston and Minihane broadly reinforced the presenter’s framing. Minihane described migration policy as an “absolute shambles” and argued that the public had been “lied to, gaslighted”. He later linked the judicial decision to public concerns about the “invasion of illegal immigrants” and claimed, “Every day we hear about these men assaulting and raping and murdering our daughters and our children.”

• Lis provided the principal dissenting voice, challenging several assertions made by the presenter and other panellists. He pointed out that “Being an asylum seeker is not a crime.” His comments were met with further challenges, with the presenter describing the discussion as entering “very dangerous territory.”

• The segment also included suggestions that the judiciary and government were withholding information because elites feared the public would respond with racism.

• In a segment based on a Telegraph report about a 2007 legal case involving British soldiers in Iraq, Christys asked of Starmer, “whose side is that man on?” and claimed Starmer had “led a legal case that opened the door to hundreds of British soldiers being pursued for alleged war crimes”. Barrister Steven Barrett reinforced this argument, claiming “Our prime minister chose to act for free, persecuting veterans.” 

• Although a Downing Street clarification was later shown stating that Starmer had acted only as an assessor on points of law and had not represented claimants in the case, there was no substantive response to the broader accusations that he was anti-veteran.

• Throughout the programme the presenter repeatedly signalled his own position, referring to energy secretary Ed Miliband as “Red Ed” and later describing the prime minister as “comrade Keir” and the “coward in chief” travelling to meet his Chinese “handlers”.

Due Accuracy

• The programme also contained several claims presented without verification or clarification. Christys asserted that the UK would have to “cough up 50 million quid to the Rwandan government” following the collapse of the migration agreement, but this is just what is being claimed rather than an agreed settlement.

• Christys stated that Starmer had “led the legal case that opened door to British soldiers being pursued for alleged war crimes”, although later government clarification indicated he had acted only as an assessor on legal points.

• In the closing section, the presenter referred to reports of migrants purchasing fake job offers to secure visas and commented: “migrants are now buying fake visas… they’ve always been doing it but we’re just finding out about it.”

These statements were delivered as factual claims without supporting evidence or contextual clarification.

COMPLIANCE RATING 2/5

Programme 

Jacob Rees-Mogg (January 22 2026)

Topics

• The “Rees-Moggologue” on migrant boats 

• Interview with Reform defector Andrew Rosindell

• Andy Burnham’s future

• Prince Harry at the High Court

Guests

Natacha Tannous Deputy chair of Kensington & Chelsea Conservatives

Luke Sullivan Political director to Keir Starmer, 2021-24

Nick Jones Founder/organiser of Crowborough Patrol group

Andrew Rosindell Reform MP for Romford

Richard Fitzwilliams Freelance royal expert

Overview

Most of the hour was taken up by right wing talking points: migration, and the battle between Reform and the Conservatives. Although Luke Sullivan represented a centre left point of view, his airtime was restricted, with Rees-Mogg and other guests given considerably more time to attack the government than he was afforded to defend it.

Our reviewer said: “The programme contained deeply divisive rhetoric and deeply misleading claims that, partly because of its format (it begins with a four-minute ‘Moggologue’ delivered by the host to camera), mainly went unchallenged. The programme did not push back against alarmist claims; in fact it encouraged them. Many of them were made by the host himself.”

Due Impartiality

• The first segment began with eight minutes of monologue and discussion bemoaning migrants being housed at an army training camp at Crowborough, East Sussex. It then allowed only two minutes for Luke Sullivan to make the government case before continuing with another three minutes of cross-talk.

• Nick Jones was introduced as the founder/organiser of a local group opposed to housing migrants at Crowborough. Jones is also a conspiracy theorist who believes Keir Starmer is “a puppetician (sic) being controlled by BlackRock” with the aim of creating a “one world UN-led government”, although that was not mentioned here.

• Without challenge or context, Rees-Mogg told his audience: “Campaign groups have cited hundreds of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in asylum accommodation in the UK as case for concern. Some of these charges include rapes, sexual assaults and murders.” There was no attempt to question whether this alleged level of criminality was higher or lower than for UK citizens in similar age groups.

• When Jones suggested what might happen if migrants managed to overwhelm the soldiers and seize their weapons – “600 men rioting and breaking into an armoury with live weapons would be quite worrying” – there was no pushback from Rees-Mogg that this might be alarmist.

• Rees-Mogg said: “The great British public know that this entire system is an affront to their inherent sense of fairness. Illegal migrants are being rewarded for cutting the queue, breaking our laws, and undermining the integrity of the country.” Throughout the discussion, there was no suggestion offered that migrants are anything other than criminals.

Due Accuracy

• Rees-Mogg told viewers: “Under the (European Convention on Human Rights), we will always grant asylum to most of the people who come over in boats. They will then be here to stay… almost everyone who comes does end up with the right to be here”. In 2024, only 47% of applications were granted at the initial decision (although 43% of appeals were also granted).

• The programme contained another dubious statement. Rees-Mogg told viewers that at Crowborough, “a total of 27 male illegal immigrants arrived last night”. But he couldn’t have known that all 27 of these were people who entered the country illegally, overstayed a visa or have exhausted appeals. The government refers to the 27 as asylum seekers, giving them the temporary right to remain in the UK while their claims are processed.

• The often-repeated claim that 780 million people could notionally claim asylum in the UK was correctly sourced to the Conservative-supporting Centre for Policy Studies. However, there was no pushback about whether this was in any way a realistic assessment of the number of refugees on the move in the world at the moment – or whether they would all fancy cramming into the UK. 

COMPLIANCE RATING 3/5

Programme

Lee Anderson’s Real World (January 16 2026)

Topics

• Keir Starmer’s future as PM

• Airport grievances

• First Cousin Marriage in Britain

• Banning the hijab 

Guests

Mike Parry TV pundit, former Express and Sun journalist

Fahima Mahomed Young Muslim political commentator

Clive Wratten CEO Business Travel Association

“Based and Bougie” Black British blogger of Congolese descent

Overview

This programme afforded Reform MP Anderson the chance to discuss the party’s talking points, with only a gesture towards including other opinions. Two of his three “political” guests also put forward views strongly aligned with Reform. 

Exchanges between Parry and Mahomed were relatively fair in their tone and balance. Mahomed was allowed to speak largely without interruption, and Anderson told her “begrudgingly well done” at the end of the discussion. However, the debate with Based and Bougie was one-sided.

One reviewer said: “In the discussions of immigrant violence, climate change policy and employment, both the guests and presenter put forward a series of wildly inaccurate assertions that were not backed up by any supporting evidence and were not corrected. The show was riddled with inaccuracies, was not impartial and made only the slightest gestures towards balance.”

Due Impartiality

• The only participant who was not aligned with Reform and its views was Mahomed. But in the opening segment, which was provocatively labelled “Right against Left”, the producers physically placed Mahomed away from the presenter to a distant part of the set, beside a blackboard reading “left in the corner”. The guest did not object.

• Anderson said that young men coming to Britain from countries like Afghanistan “treat women like second class citizens” and “they come and do all sorts of nasty stuff and they [anti-racists] never call that out.” This allegation was made without any supporting evidence. The guest agreed.

• After long discussions in which one guest attacked Stand Up To Racism and another guest criticised airport parking charges, balance was offered by reading out short statements from SUTR and from Heathrow and Gatwick airports. 

Due Accuracy

• Parry claimed that around “10 million” people in Britain were economically inactive while receiving benefits. Later in the discussion he adjusted his claim, stating that around “4 million” people would “never work again.” These figures were not substantiated during the programme and were not challenged by the presenter.

• Parry also said that Ed Miliband’s “obsession” with climate change would cost £4.5tn. This figure, splashed in the Daily Mail, is from a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs think tank, which was in turn based on an industry report that expressly warned against using it to project future costs. Parry’s claim was not challenged by the presenter or the other participant. Anderson intervened to point out that Miliband was not there to defend himself after Parry referred to him as “Mad Ed”.

• During an interview segment with the guest Based and Bougie, she alleged that a demonstrator associated with Stand Up To Racism had used a racial slur against her. The claim was not examined or verified during the interview itself, and the complaint appears to be ongoing. A statement from the organisation was read out at the end of the programme. But the segment had the feel of being a “love in” with Lee Anderson. No effort was made at balance or accuracy.

COMPLIANCE RATING 3/5

NOTE: A GB News spokesman said: “Your request did not provide sufficient detail, nor sufficient time, to allow us to comment meaningfully on the claims in advance of publication in an openly politically biased outlet.”