Talk:GB News

and £600,000 pa, etc

What does this even mean? Is it his contract (in which case a LOT more information is needed about that), and if so why is it not referenced with a footnote? I don't mind he gets paid it (or if hes fired) but just dumping "and £600,000 pa," is Not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:9800:B540:F717:A477:58AD:5224:FAC4 (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Also I removed the following from 'Advertising boycott' because it has nothing to do with the advertising boycott: "known for its outspoken approach..." and "and ongoing controversies, including breaches of impartiality rules and run-ins with the broadcasting regulator Ofcom." No advertiser left specifically because of Ofcom or because it breached an impartiality ruling (which is political concern), but from the pressure group named in the article (i.e. bad publicity not Ofcom rulings). (The first paragraph above notes its outspoken approach, so why is it included in the opening first sentence of the next paragraph (so said twice)?

'Undue' reviews

@DeFacto: Why do you believe the Reception section is so 'undue' and 'cherry-picked' that it must be removed wholesale rather than have constructive edits made to expand it? Sam Walton (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Samwalton9, because it does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and because opinions of non-notable commentators have been included. Do the research, build a balanced paragraph, then bring it here for discussion and possible refinement. Secondary sources should be used too, not just the primary source of the opinion, to show that the opinion has due weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Which other viewpoints are missing? There are now 3 reviews from major publications, I didn't immediately see any others that are missing as of this morning. As for these being primary sources, that's not how that works on Wikipedia. Reviews will always be the 'primary source of the opinion' because that's what a review inherently is. It would be ridiculous to require that all reviews first be written about in another publication before we added them. Sam Walton (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Samwalton9, really? It seems unlikely to me that the competition's unchallenged 'opinions' can be added willy-nilly without needing to comply with the normal due, NPOV, RS, etc. policies. And we also now seem to have discarded the advice given in WP:BRD too. Ho-hum. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

How would you want the section to look like? Major media publishing these reviews make them due and nothing in the section needs RS beyond WP:RSOPINION, as it doesn't make claims like "the reception was mostly negative" (which would need non-opinion pieces) or similar. 15 (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

15, I'd expect majority views supported by writers in multiple reliable sources, and not the personal opinions of individual non notable people who write for competitive news organisations. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Broadly concur with DeFacto, are these subject matter experts, are they notable writers in their field, etc. We need a little higher boundary I think here, otherwise it may constitute WP:UNDUE weight. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We somehow have a reception section that doesn't contain any published reviews. The removed section contained neutral descriptions of 3 published reviews from television critics. GB News isn't directly competing with these print publications, and as all 3 are reliable sources we can trust that they have provided neutral reviews. One of them is even positive! Sam Walton (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added the part of the Telegraph review quoted in a guardian non-opinion piece, which also establishes a majority opinion in its first sentence. Also added some other non-opinion pieces calling the reception mixed. 15 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Explicit political orientation

Based on this BBC article, I've added that GB News is set up with an explicit political orientation to the lead. This is contradicted by GB News § Programming, which states GB News has not explicitly indicated a political allegiance, sourced with [1]. While I am not completely sure whether GB News has not explicitly indicated a political allegiance can be sourced from the article, it does mention that GB News' CEO has claimed to be "committed to impartial journalism". How can we fix this? 15 (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

15, the BBC assertion is unsubstantiated so this probably shouldn't be asserted in Wiki's voice but rather as the opinion of the writer (if his opinions are noteworthy). -- DeFacto (talk). 12:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If there's reliable sources stating an explicit orientation, I don't think Frangopoulos' objections should be a negating factor. Having a bias like that is not allowed in the UK so he'll try to hide it. Quite clearly a case of WP:MANDY. DeputyBeagle (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue the BBC isn't a very reliable source in this case and should be removed since its whole purpose is to go against them, not to mention they have made it very difficult for GB news before it was launched. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1449320/BBC-news-GB-News-public-events-footage-launch-day-Sunday-gb-news-channel-launch Eck (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Express is considered to be generally unreliable on Wikipedia, per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Article referenced to make this assertion is purely the opinion of the BBC journalist, and includes no references as to how he arrived that the opinion. Actual views broadcast aside, it was never set up with a mission statement to be of a particular leaning, so this assertion is false. Vote to remove. ianwakes87 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The BBC article was not written as an opinion piece. The BBC is considered a reliable source. As I mentioned earlier, what the channel says is irrelevant here as per WP:MANDY DeputyBeagle (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This entry on Wikipedia, for a British television channel called GB News, begins with a warning that it appears to be influenced by one contributor. If this is so, then that contributor has assembled a near-damning condemnation of the channel's output.

Living in England, for many years, and having watched and heard many hours of news most weeks of my life, my experience contradicts the implication that the channel is not worth watching -- that it is almost a joke.

The staff speaking on it do make jokes frequently. There is a saying that in the world of reporting news "facts are sacred" and one should only insert any comment when it is clearly identified as such.

Last night (Nov. 25, 2022) a man named Laurence Fox concluded his first hour-long programme by interviewing a boxing-promoter who had 'transitioned' at sixty. While I do not agree with GB News's line on Covid (I'm 70) I nonetheless do think a lot more has to be said on Climate Change. In some parts coal-fired power stations are being opened and in another part cars that don't need plugging-in (petrol-electric) are being advertised.

Context isn't EVERYTHING but it matters a lot. I'm happier that things get pointed out (perhaps by a joke) and 'interviews' get shown (and it can be that more is being revealed about the interviewer!). ---Peter Andrewartha Peter Andrewartha (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Adverts pulled

Adverts from Kopparberg, Grolsch, The Open University and Nivea have been pulled from GB News.[2][3] I am waiting to add this as there are serious concerns about WP:UNDUE in previous versions of this article, so I would prefer to gain consensus for the inclusion of the adverts being pulled before making any edits. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

These seem like reasonable inclusions to the article. Sam Walton (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This just seems like WP:UNDUE weight and WP:RECENTISM at the moment, fails WP:10YEARTEST in my view.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

No reason at all why the initial reaction to a channel's launch would not be notable. In 10 years it will doubtless be very relevant as a tale of how a plucky independent channel who seemed to have everyone against them went on to beat the odds and become an international media empire. Muting such relevant information just gives the impression that the channel is widely ignored and inherently non-notable. Bonusballs (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

By definition this advertiser removal has been noted by some secondary, reliable sources. But given this is very recent news it is difficult to tell at least at the moment whether or not this constitutes WP:UNDUE weight. Just becuase something can be verified it does mean it is worthy for inclusion. Part of the your argument seems to stem from WP:CRYSTAL ball assumptions. We have no deadlines here and we are not news. Let's wait some time and look back to see if it worth including. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I often find when I Google things which happened in the 00s and even the 90s I find news articles from sites like the BBC and the Guardian saying what happened well over 10 years ago. As the BBC and the Guardian have published articles on the advertising issues and opening night technical failures, they will be remembered for as long as the channel exists or longer if it doesn't last that long. Hstudent (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Its continued existence online doesn't necessarily mean it's notable however. As Spy-cicle said, it could well be a case of WP:RECENTISM, which is why we can afford to wait. — Czello 17:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm inclined to agree with Spy-cicle; I think it is WP:UNDUE to include it at this juncture. — Czello 17:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

On the recentism point, I think the immediate reaction to the station by advertisers and other outlets, as covered broadly by RSs, is significant to the station's story and hence notable. It will be relevant if this station lasts for 1 year or 10 years. Whether it's undue and and not balanced is another issue and one I don't quite understand; this is not 1 story out of a 100, but a significant portion of the coverage of GB News. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also Octopus Energy, Ovo Energy, Ikea have paused or walked away from GB News following pressure from, amongst others, Stop Funding Hate.[4] Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

GB News satellite broadcasting

Can someone with the correct edit rights add to GB News#Broadcasting that HD signal in the satellite distribution is in the 1080i/25 (MBAFF) format? Thanks.

2001:569:51F9:1300:95AF:2924:EA3F:3DFE (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible sources

More added.79.76.228.53 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Updated. 79.76.225.31 (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

News channel

Politics and content aside, is this a true news channel? There's very little news more talk-show, conversational, guest speaker, interview, panel type style rather than a news channel as most would understand it. It's more of political affairs or current affairs discussion channel. Obviously other news channels do these too, but more of a filler for actual news reporting which makes up the vast amount of air time, this seems to be the other way round Abcmaxx (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed it to Political commentary to bring it inline with similar channels such as Fox News. Mongoletsi (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a news channel, e.g. BBC: Press Gazette reported that other companies and organisations including Nivea and drinks brand Grolsch had also distanced themselves from the news channel within 48 hours of its launch.[5] Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Right leaning

"GB News has been described as right-leaning." Why isn't this sentence written simply as "GB News is right-leaning." There are a broad spectrum of sources saying this including The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Financial Times as currently cited in the article. It's therefore verifiable isn't it? 80.41.95.252 (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Good call, I've changed it to 'is' and moved it to the lead. 15 (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Approve of the move to the lede. Good edit, thank you. 80.41.95.252 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto, can you help me understand why GB News' political leaning is a "subjective opinion" and why we must attribute it to "some of its competitors"? A large number of RS attest to its political orientation, which is not an opinion - "right-leaning" is different from "awesome" or "bad". That The Telegraph, Guardian and FT are GBN's competitors (which seems implausible given that they are not news channels) should not really matter, see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69 § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus? for a related discussion. If you are worried about its political leaning being undue, there is a host of sources talking about its politics and it is arguably a big part of GBN's branding. Thoughts? 15 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

15, describing a political leaning is akin to describing a geographical position. To people living in Southampton, Birmingham is up north, whereas to people living in Edinburgh it is way down south. Similarly with media. To the Morning Star, The Guardian might appear right-leaning, whereas to The Daily Mail it might seem hard-left. Take a look at the results of this poll to see what I mean by 'subjective opinion'. How can we justifiably assert a political characterisation as an absolute fact in Wiki's voice? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, the survey, which bears little relevance for this question, also finds that respondents' personal ideology has little impact on their judgement w.r.t. newspapers' ideology.

Describing a political leaning is not akin to describing a geographical position. While it is true that you can rank views by how right- or left-wing they are, a centrist ideology can be ascribed certain political positions in every country. While the policy positions associated with centrism vary across countries (cf. UK vs US), you can still cluster parties within countries' political systems. Do you think it is inaccurate to describe the Conservative Party (UK) as centre-right and the Labour Party (UK) as centre-left because a Nazi might view them both as hard-left and a communist both as centre-right? We don't even have the "problem" of sources conflicting in their assessment of GB News' political leanings in this case, I could not find a single RS calling it something else than right-leaning or right-wing. 15 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

15, so "the consensus amongst other British news media (after it being on the air for less than 3 days) is that GB News is right-leaning". I don't see any problem in adding it in those terms - with context and appropriately attributed. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

While I don't agree with DeFacto on this - we can hardly expect to never have sourcing on a media publication because other publications might be biased on reporting on them - I do think 'described as right-leaning' might be more appropriate in this case for two reasons: The first being, as DeFacto points out, that the channel has hardly been running for a few days, and those descriptions were made before it even launched. The second being that there is coverage in which GB News say they won't have a political leaning. That doesn't mean we should remove it entirely, but "described as" clarifies that it isn't self-descriptive. Sam Walton (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Samwalton9, how is what GB News says relevant? Isn't this just a case of WP:MANDY? As I agree with your point on GB News being new, I'm happy for this issue to be revisited once some time has passed. 15 (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If they were open to being labelled that, it would be easier to accept it as obvious and include it in Wiki's voice. Evidently, they do not accept the label. We could speculate about why they dispute it, but it's not really our job. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be totally inappropriate and inaccurate to label this station "right leaning" in the introduction. The fact some its rival media organisations may make the claim in an attempt to smear it does not make it true, nor does it mean their views should be given such prominence as being put into the introduction. Issues around alleged bias or political leaning should only be covered in the article itself where a balanced position can be taken. If you label this right leaning, then do other news channels need to be labelled left leaning? its not worth it. Keep biased claims out of the introduction. RWB2020 (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that having a right-leaning focus is their sole USP, if anything not pointing this out would be biased, and in fact it's not "some rivals" it's every other outlet that has described it as such, across the board. For example Andrew Neil is described as a right-wing conservative, there is nothing controversial in that, no-one stating whether this is a good thing, a bad thing or otherwise. Biased would be saying saying something along the lines of "it's far-right propogandist mouthpiece seeking to spread alt-right fake news"; the label "right-leaning" merely sets out its clear political position, as widely reliably referenced. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Channel does not describe itself as right leaning, so that is not its USP. If anything its USP is that its not a rolling news channel like its rival. Its not appropriate to say it a right leaning channel simply because left wing media organisations (who often dont get described as left wing in articles) make that claim. RWB2020 (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RWB2020 the Telegraph and Financial Times are left wing? Even if they were biased, it would not make them unreliable. 15 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@User:RWB2020 the reason those so-called "left-wing media organisations" aren't described as left-wing is because they usually are not left wing, if they were they would be reliably described as such. The only left-wing source here is The Guardian, and they've not said anything different to the other sources. The only reason this minor channel has been getting any attention is precisely only because of its political stance, regardless whether the channel itself accepts this or not, WP:DUCK. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, do we have any reliably sourced evicence as to what its 'political stance' actually is, rather than what journalists from competitor organisations speculate it might be, based on their views of the personalities on its staff? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto: Vice News, The Atlantic and The Telegraph. All published after the channels launch and reliable per WP:RSP. 15 (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

15, so we could reliably source something like "after its first few days on air, Vice News, The Atlantic and The Telegraph have characterised the channel's output as right-leaning"? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, why is attribution needed? See WP:INTEXT for situations in which attribution is needed and the last point of WP:VOICE for why attributing certain statements can be a npov issue. The channel's output being right-leaning is the majority view and does not need attribution, attributing it makes it seem like it is still an open question.

We don't need to include that their characterisation happened after its first few days on air, because it is not on us to judge whether the media has had enough time to assess the channel's political orientation - evidently, RS felt like they had enough time to evaluate the channel's politics and that's the only thing that matters to us.

What we can reliably source is GB News is right-leaning. 15 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

15, fair points about attribution, if we accept it is the general consensus. I'd say we still need the context of it being after a few days though, so casual readers realise that - we're not judging whether it is long enough, we're providing the information for readers to draw their own informed conclusion. Also, even if it's the opinion of all sources, it's stilI still opinion, so cannot be asserted as fact. So I think we need at least to say "after its first few days on air, the channel's output has been characterised as right-leaning".-- DeFacto (talk). 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, while politics views themselves can be a matter of opinion ("Conservatism is better than progressivism"), what political views an organisation expresses is a matter of fact - it is a fact that the Conservative Party is conservative, but an opinion that the Tories are better than Labour. I'd therefore favour is. I'm happy for the time to be included as a compromise, if others believe that to be best. Pinging everyone who has contributed to this section: Sam Walton RWB2020 Abcmaxx Solipsism101 The Anome LittleDwangs. 15 (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Also is there any reliable source actually that says anything different? Abcmaxx (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The Telegraph is well known as a right-wing newspaper, and the Financial Times is best described as socially liberal centre-right. Neither are even remotely left-wing. -- The Anome (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that one of the reasons the channel doesn't explicitly (and perhaps proudly) state it is right wing is that as a broadcaster legally it needs to be abide by "due impartiality", as regulated by Ofcom. Unlike,for example, newspapers expressing a particular political tendency or allegiance could get them into a fair bit of trouble. LittleDwangs (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@15: Support your comments and resolution. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure we need to include the context/time, but happy to support a compromise. LittleDwangs (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any allegation of political leaning in the introduction. It is inappropriate when the organisation does not itself describe it in such a way and whilst other news organisations such as sky news and bbc are not described with their leanings implied. It does not belong in the opening sentence or introduction at all. Making clear in the article it is alleged to be right leaning by certain news organisations is fine but it should be attributed to who is making the claim. But its totally unacceptable to put it in the introduction that its right leaning which is making a statement of fact when it is simply opinion. It would be misleading, factually inaccurate and politically biased to do that. Especially after just a few days of the channel broadcasting to forever more brand the channel "right leaning" is clearly unreasonable. RWB2020 (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

RWB2020, would you please help me understand why a description of political leaning is an opinion in light of what was said above, particularly given that a wide range of reliable sources describe it as right-leaning? And how would not including its political leaning because of what the channel says conform with WP:RSPRIMARY? The reason for including its political leaning here is that it has received a lot of attention and is therefore WP:DUE. In any case, discussion on the coverage of the BBC's and Sky News' alleged political leanings belongs to the respective article's talk page, not here. 15 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is if this article introduction opens with the line that GB News is a right leaning...." that is a statement of fact. But its not fact is it? its opinion. it is opinion of certain media organisation, some of which are rivals with their own alleged bias too. It is blatantly politically biased to smear an organisation in such a way. And as someone else has said above, there are strict rules on impartiality for broadcast media in the way there is not for newspapers. If the regulator came out and said the channel has a right leaning bias, then id accept it should be mentioned. The fact some news organisations have come out and said GB News is right leaning is worthy of mentioning, but not in the opening sentence, and certainly not stating their opinion as fact and without clear attribution of who is making the claim. RWB2020 (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree completely with this. — Czello 07:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely do not need to shove it into the lead sentence, at least for the moment. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Astra 2F

Does the article really need the "how to guide" sentences for accessing Astra 2F with a large dish that aren't actually about the channel itself? TubularWorld (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• As the paragraph states one of the original promises was it would broadcast outside the UK
• Lots of british citizens who are the target audience of this channel live abroad
• Although nominal satellite reception area is as described (northern France and beyond) the area where this signal can be received is much bigger (large parts of Europe)
• the channel broadcasts free & unencrypted which is an information that is getting lost when non-expert sources cite satellite reception possibilies listing commercial providers, paid subscription services and necessary vendor locked-in receivers when in fact any satellite receiver is capable to receive the channel
• Every TV station wants to be available to as many viewers as possible so I don't understand how reception options aren't a part "of the channel". A station that broadcasts "into a wall" won't be around very long: noone watches you = no reason for advertizers to buy timeslots = no money for running expenses including salaries

Just my opinion. Trying to prevent insufficiently informed people getting scammed by being made to pay for something that the publisher offers for free for anybody. 75.154.234.98 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just feel that a mention that it is freely available outside of the UK as part of Astra 2F would be sufficient (covers your first point). I suspect that the second point about the channel's target audience being abroad isn't strictly Wikipedia's concern, unless it becomes evident from other sources that their foreign target audience aim is particularly notable. The broadcast area from a technical perspective feels to me to be more of a detail for the Astra articles rather than each channel's article. For the fourth point, WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia isn't intended as an instruction manual, so might fail that if I'm reading the guidance correctly. I believe that the final bullet point would come under WP:PROMO where Wikipedia isn't an advertising platform that exists to satisfy the subject's running expenses or advertisers. TubularWorld (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the out-of-boundary reception being moved to Astra 2F article and just leaving here a short notice something along the lines of "The channel is available as free-to-air from Astra 2F satellite (UK beam) in large parts of Europe". You may also include the note that the HD version is 1080i (the "lesser" version of HD) as mentioned above on this page. Go ahead with the edit. 2001:569:51F9:1300:4427:80BB:42A0:6D12 (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Language use in article

Is this correct language for an encyclopedia? "Undeterred and redoubling his efforts, Neil continued on into the teeth of the gale". Seems a little bit sensationalist, and factually incorrect - there is no gale or wind of any kind.

Agree; aside from not being well-written, it also seems to lay WP:UNDUE weight to an otherwise minor criticism. I've removed it for now. — Czello 11:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) THanks for pointing this out, I have reworded and shortened the part. 15 (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Including the technical mishaps and pranks in the public response section

As per DeFacto's reverts of my edits ([6] [7]): is it undue to include the technical mishaps, pranks etc. in the public response to GB News section? I'd argue it isn't, since they have been reported in numerous reliable sources, both in and outside of the UK. The New York Times piece (cited), for example, is mentions them and @GBNewsFails. It is a fairly good even-handed account of the channel (and could be used elsewhere in the article), and is not sensationalist.

My second edit included Lady Colin Campbell's comments on Epstein's ephebophilia (as if that makes child sex trafficking ok somehow?), which I also think should be included in the article. Although I will admit that "Public response" is perhaps the wrong section for that. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word 'explicit'?

It can be reported and genrally considered to have a poltical bias, but the organisation has not confirmed themselves, so I would argue the word 'explicit' is out of place here? I am aware some sources state this, but the Chairman and the overall organsation are not explicitly saying they are. HelpfulPi (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the old wording seemed to imply they've said "this is our political leaning", which (as far as I know) isn't the case. — Czello 13:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

GB News Radio = just audio simulcast of the TV channel, no new programming

Can someone with rights add this info? From source: "The output will be a full audio simulcast with the television station, meaning no special programmes or content will be made for the radio channel." 75.154.234.98 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Czello 18:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Cite template showing an error though. 75.154.234.98 (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. — Czello 18:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Expansion plans - Spain, Eastern Europe

Chairman Andrew Neil talked about expansion to new markets with their own regional programming if GB News launch successful. Can registered contributors add it if it's something that should be here? 2001:569:51F9:1300:318C:B4A1:6191:DA75 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Streaming on Android

The article mentions streaming only on the iOS app. The Android app has streaming as well. 2001:569:51F9:1300:318C:B4A1:6191:DA75 (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed claim first political news channel

I removed the claim in lead Upon its launch in June 2021, it was the first channel that is generally viewed to have established a political orientation in the United Kingdom. (here). I did this because the BBC article we used previously to say there was an explicit political orientation, to my mind, refutes this claim. It says GB News has been talked up as Britain's answer to Fox News, but the validity of that comparison is limited. It is not the first channel to be set up in Britain with a strong worldview - RT, formerly known as Russia Today, has done that for years. But GB News is the first to be set up with an explicit political leaning.[8] Pinging DeputyBeagle who reverted this removal. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of that sentence. The wording isnt backed up by the source, and it would only be the opinion of the BBC not a statement of fact even if it did make the claim. RWB2020 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

RWB2020 given that the BBC source is not an opinion piece and the BBC is reliable, it is a statement of fact, not an opinion. 15 (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

In which case the best option is to reword it to note that it's the first with an explicit political leaning, not to remove the sentence altogether DeputyBeagle (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion currently about whether that claim should be included in the lead or at all, so it would be inappropriate for me to add that info at this time. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Ratings

They are only 31,000 now.

https://www.theelondoneconomic.com/news/gb-news-figures-plummet-following-explosive-start-278594/?amp

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/tv/gb-news-viewer-ratings-plummet-below-pobol-y-cwm/ar-AALvuci?ocid=uxbndlbing

79.76.240.201 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the reference is weird. We use Wales Online,[9] which derives its reporting from the Express (which is not a reliable source), which in turn uses a Tweet by Victoria Derbyshire citing an unlinked report by Media Monitoring Services. We probably need a more reliable source for this info and analysis. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

E.g. we cite Thursday (24 June) figures to say Neil's show "attracts" 31,000. Yet Evening Standard reports uncritically Neil's claim that his show attracted 92,500 on Wednesday (23 June).[10] ES trumping Express. Are we cherry-picking an off-day for Neil? (Added later, but The Times also has the 93k figure for Neil's Weds show.)[11] Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Are we finding it difficult to assume good faith? Perhaps we can say that the viewer count decreased in the weeks following the launch without specifying by how much, although I believe that to be not very informative, as a decrease in viewership is expected considering how highly anticipated the channel's launch was. 15 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That's how The Times covered it. On Wednesday the viewers had fallen to 93,000, three times that of Sky and 24,000 more than BBC News. It was more than double the channel’s average number of viewers, which was 44,000 over the same period.[12] Including cherry-picked stats, rather than suggesting any editor did it. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Political leaning in lead

Several editors seem to be intent on keeping any mention of political leaning out of the lead paragraph. I find this surprising. Not only is this the single most salient point in media coverage of this channel, it's explicitly the channel's unique selling point according to its creators. @DeFacto and Czello:, can you please justify your edits removing this highly salient information from the lead para? -- The Anome (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Per the section above regarding the removal of (negative leaning) reviews I'm concerned about general whitewashing of this page. It seems that content painting GB News in a bad light is rarely able to survive on this page without being removed by one of the editors active here. Sam Walton (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with this. As per another section above which I created (which was my inclusion of the widely-mocked technical failings and pranks, which were even covered in international media like the NYT as well as newspapers of most persuasions in the UK), I was accused of "cherry-picking". This article should not be sanitising or be PR for GB News. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Anome, my edit was to revert your total move of content from the body to the lead. The lead is for a summary of the article, and generally does not need cites (see WP:LEADCITE), not for the actual inclusion of all the cited content itself.

And if there is a consensus that the summary in the lead should include a summary of the opinions about the political leaning, as discussed and presented elsewhere in the article, then I do not see a problem with that. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Then let's go with that. -- The Anome (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Anome, do we know the political leaning yet, if any, after just two weeks on the air? I thought TV news was mandated to be broadly politically neutral. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It is supposed to be, but we have numerous reliable sources describing it as right-leaning, both from left- and right-wing individuals themselves. They are openly opinionated, but their argument seems to be that they have numerous opinions on the show, and are therefore not biased – in practise meaning they will bring on one 'woke' person to make up the balance. Benjamin Butterworth acknowledged this when he was on there at the start. [13] (WP:MANDY applies when we talk about whether GB News themselves say they're neutral – as you say, they are supposed to be, so of course they will say so). –Bangalamania (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Including this information in the opening sentence is completely WP:UNDUE. There's a debate to be had whether or not it should be in the lead at all (personally, I don't think it should), but it being in the opening sentence is not appropriate. Your edit also says that it's "notable" for this reason. I don't see a degree of notability for this that justifies it being in the opening sentence like this. Personally I think that statement should be reserved for either the "Broadcasting" or "Programming" sections. — Czello 09:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Even though I support this article unambiguously stating that the channel is right-wing (we have enough RS evidence to prove this), I do think the opening sentence is undue. I would include this in the lead, or at the very least note that is was formed as being 'anti-woke' (whatever that means in practise). --Bangalamania (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I will state again, i strongly oppose any attempt to misleadingly claim as fact that the channel has a political leaning. Its rival news organisations making alleged claims about learning is them stating their opinions, not stating fact. As stated above, all news channels have to follow Ofcom broadcasting regulations on neutrality, and until the regulator itself makes such a claim about political leaning, it does not belong in that first sentence. There is a blatant attempt to smear this news organisation by some rival media organisations, and we should not allow competitors views to infect the introduction of this article. There is no consensus at all for alleged political leaning to be stated as fact in the introduction in a way that would clearly mislead and misinform. I too will be reverting edits that try to include it without consensus in the intro, and if it is added and ends up remaining i will be putting NPOV tags to make clear the article would be biased. These issues belong in the article, but not in the opening sentence or introduction in the way some are proposing. RWB2020 (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I really can't see why people are objecting to the channel being characterized as right-wing, something which is essentially its mission statement and USP. See this: https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/gb-news-can-right-wing-offend-viewers-impartiality-rules-ofcom-standards-head-908672 , in which Adam Baxter, head of standards and audience protection at OFCOM, is quoted as saying:

“People have said about the new channels ‘Oh my god, isn’t this awful’. We’re alive to that debate. Both are seeking to come from a right-of-centre perspective and there’s nothing in the code that prohibits a broadcasters coming from a particular perspective.”

-- The Anome (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of a strawman -- the dispute is whether this detail should be in the lead (or, worse, the opening sentence). Whether it should be mentioned at all, in the body of the article, is a separate topic. — Czello 09:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting, too, that there's a separate thread above for whether or not the channel should be described as right wing. — Czello 09:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That article is published in march, 3 months before the channel even launched. These are peoples opinions, not fact. And that source is not ofcom saying that the broadcaster is right leaning or right wing, simply that its possible to have different perspectives whilst remaining within ofcom rules. The fact many of the claims stem from before anyone viewed even a second of its actual broadcasting is a factor in this too, its been about assumptions rather than reality. If you can point me to the news channel itself or the regulator saying GB News is a right leaning/right wing news organisation, then id accept there is more justification for its inclusion in the introduction. Till then, i strongly oppose inclusion of any such claims in the introduction, especially unattributed and in a way that implies its fact rather than certain peoples opinions. These matters should be left to the rest of the article where it can go into more detail and be done in a balanced way. RWB2020 (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, everything is an "opinion". This is what WP:NPOV is for. However, in this case, the person saying "both are seeking to come from a right-of-centre perspective" is the relevant official at OFCOM, the official content regulator in the UK, which will have had extensive conversations with all involved in their petition for approval as a broadcaster in the UK. -- The Anome (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The quote does not say that GB news is a right wing or right leaning news organisation, it doesnt even say it will be. The channel has been up 2 weeks, we should wait until ofcom issues any official statements about the channel now that it has actually launched. And no. there are facts and there are opinions. the two things are different. If the BBC says GB News is right wing, that is the BBCs opinion, its not a statement of fact. Which is why any mention of such opinion needs to be clearly attributed, not stated as fact. RWB2020 (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

OFCOM says it is "seeking to come from a right-of-centre perspective". Journalists approached by the channel were told it was "pitched to them as a right-wing alternative to the BBC" (see [14], [15]). What more do you need? -- 10:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A source from Ofcom clearly stating that GB News is right leaning or right wing. And also a source from GB News saying it is a right wing / right leaning news organisation. RWB2020 (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

RWB2020, are these demands in any way grounded in policy? Why would we need GB News to say that they are right wing? We can't use them as they are a primary source for their political orientation. I don't really subscribe to your postmodern interpretation of political orientations either. Political leanings are reasonably well-defined and not a matter of opinion. It is not the BBC's opinion that GB News is right wing. One can make a factual statement about an organisations political opinion (e.g., "The Conservative Party is centre-right"), which is different from an opinion (e.g., "Being centre-right is bad"). Do you really think that it is impossible to make factual claim about the Conservative Party's political leaning in the aforementioned example? And equally, saying that GB News is right-wing is not an opinion. Also, if it were, why would it be mentioned in a non-opinion piece? 15 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused about the motives of those who want to remove this claim from the lede. Do they think that characterising the channel as "right-wing" or "right-leaning" is somehow an attack or slur, and wish to defend the channel from it? -- The Anome (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a case of what's WP:DUE. It being in the lead means that it's a significant, defining thing that we need to make readers aware of before they get into the bulk of the article. For example, The Times doesn't mention its political leaning in the lead; instead that's reserved for a subsection. Again, I think there's a debate to be had there -- but it being in the very first sentence (something else entirely) is completely undue. — Czello 11:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

So would in the lede, but not the first sentence, be acceptable to you? -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Times is different from GB News. The notable selling point of GB News is that it is a right-wing news channel. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best. That is not to pass judgement on being right wing, it is just to state it in fact. It is mentioned frequently in news articles about the channel. It is therefore notable enough to be mentioned from the getgo in the lede. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'd go against it being the lead at all for the reasons I've explained above and to echo those elsewhere on this talk page. I think another point that needs mentioning is that the lead to this article is very small (only 3 sentences right now). Shoe-horning their supposed political views into an otherwise-neutral lead again seems WP:UNDUE. Presently it's mentioned in Background, which is the first section in the article -- that seems enough to me. — Czello 12:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how we ended up with a lede that says almost nothing, and a tiny "Background" section, instead of a single lede section that says both, other than as an artifice to keep politics out of the lede. Compare and contrast the lede of Fox News, which begins with the words "Fox News, officially Fox News Channel, abbreviated FNC and commonly known as Fox, is an American multinational conservative cable news television channel based in New York City", mentioning Fox News' political alignment in the first sentence. As with Fox News, GB News' political stance is of the essence of the channel's existence. -- The Anome (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Anome, as I told you above, it's nothing to do with keeping politics out of the lead, it's to do with writing a readable article. Ideally, the lead will not have sourced prose in it, all of that should be in the article body. The Fox News article you cite is an excellent example of a poorly written article, with the lead containing content that does not exist elsewhere in the article, hence the untidy and cluttered look of it as it is contaminated with much overciting. The way forward is not to write the lead first, but to develop a comprehensive well-rounded and fully sourced article first, and then to succinctly summarise the key points of it, with due weight, in the lead. Read WP:LEAD for further guidance. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I weak support including the info for readability reasons, but I would note with Fox News their claim of "conservative" is supported by academic articles/texts making this analysis. As opposed to how the channel was billed by other news organisations before it was launched or after a couple weeks of shows. I am not sure if other news organisations will continue to label GB News right-wing after more extensive sampling of its content. So it seems somewhat rushed compared to how it's treated in the Fox lead (a channel with decades rather than weeks of content), when we should wait for considered analysis. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If articles later largely refute that it's right wing, we can have another discussion and see about changing how it's described here. But in the mean time, there are more than enough reliable sources to assign the label. Whether or not they're rivals is irrelevant at the end of the day. The right-wing descriptor has been assigned by left-wing, neutral, and right-wing sources so it's hardly about smearing the new channel DeputyBeagle (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

wingnut media, "right wing" descriptor is fair and RS. Acousmana 13:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about why anyone would want to keep the channel's USP out of the lead. What is appealing about the channel if not the overall right-wing nature of its presenters and commentators? And this trait is what the majority of reliable sources discuss, in one way or another.

I think we definitely need something more nuanced than "the channel is right-wing", because there's some Ofcom "impartiality" rules that there is no evidence of them breaking. Unfortunately, the body of the article is very scattered and inconsistent on the matter. I'm really struggling to square the BBC's "GB News is the first to be set up with an explicit political leaning" with this Ofcom impartiality and the channel's flip-flopping on whether they do have a political perspective or not. It seems to me that it is at least clear that we could say, in the lead: "News media in the UK characterised the channel as right-wing". I mean, this is given as its defining trait by the Daily Telegraph and Financial Times; it's not some partisan slur by The Guardian. Under "Background", we can say this and then add "because X, Y, Z".

Another thing that's a bit off is this so-called "mixed reception" to the channel which, by all accounts, has not received positive reception. It's an astounding technical failure by any standards, with lots of bad lighting, missing equipment, live technical difficulties and so on. This bit needs expansion and improvement. — Bilorv (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, Ofcom has equally been vague about what is allowed and not, coming from a "right wing perspective" (or something along those lines) seems to be allowed. I don't think we should speculate too much on this - GB News is overwhelmingly described as right leaning/right wing, notwithstanding the lack of Ofcom involvement. I am also in favour of moving it to the lead, given how much attention it has received, possibly even as a descriptor in the first sentence as is often done with more partisan media.

Regarding the mixed reception part: RS say that its reception was mixed, not that it was bad. We can add more reviews of GB News, there are quite a few of its launch. See Talk:GB News § 'Undue' reviews for a discussion. 15 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Still strongly oppose the attempt to misleadingly state as fact that the channel is right wing or right leaning in the introduction. It is not a statement of fact, and it is inappropriate to allow other media organisations to define the channels leaning without directly attributing it to them when the channel itself and the regulator have not claimed such political leaning. If there should be a sentence in the introduction stating that it has been described as right leaning by some then that belongs at the bottom of the introduction and with attribution and stating clearly the channel itself has not stated such political affiliation. Under no circumstances should the opening sentence of this article misleadingly and inaccurately state as fact this its a right leaning channel, if it does, the article will be biased, and ill be adding some tags to it to make sure its very clear the intro and the article itself would be biased, misleading, and factually inaccurate. RWB2020 (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If there was consensus to state the channel's political leaning as a fact in the lead, you would not be allowed to add neutrality or other tags, as they are not meant to be a means to express your dissatisfaction with consensus (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I am honestly puzzled as to why you would say this, do you seriously believe your odd "threat" of adding tags will change anyone's view on this? You are yet to provide policy which supports your claim and should revise WP:RS for why other media are a more reliable source for reporting on GB News than the channel itself. There is no such requirement that the channel needs to admit its own leaning. 15 (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I dont believe there is consensus for such a change. thats the whole point. And the policy issues are clear, it would not be neutral, it would be biased, and it would be factually inaccurate. You cannot state an opinion as fact. It is the opinion of some people that the channel is right leaning or right wing. that is not a statement of fact. This has been discussed for weeks now making that basic point. If the fact some claim it is right leaning should be mentioned in the introduction is another matter, but it doesnt belong in the first sentence, and it cannot be done in a way that states opinion as fact. RWB2020 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Widely described as right-leaning?

If it is, it is time to supply reliable sources saying so, per WP:WEASEL which lists "it is widely thought" as potential weasel words and states: "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies". It is not good enough, per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, to draw our own conclusion from the five sources simply opining that it is right-leaning. All that those five sources do is support the opinions of five individual commentators.

If it genuinely is "widely described" as such, then there will be reliable sources drawing that conclusion which we can use to support it. Pending the finding of supporting sources, I have removed it. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, let's say "it is right-leaning" then. As discussed numerous times in the above sections, its political leanings are not a matter of commentators opinion, but fact. 15 (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree, and have added this (removing the 'widely' as although this is true, it is considered OR). – Bangalamania (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

GBNEWS is not on channel 216 on Satellite in the UK! That channel is Dave. 2A00:23C4:CA07:900:B182:C55C:58FF:EC7D (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

All Perspectives Ltd.

Perhaps a section or new linked Wiki entry on All Perspectives Ltd. (also Liberty Global PLC and Discovery Communications Europe Ltd.) could be created, to give more idea of the people behind this venture. As of August 2021, according to Companies House, the following are the Officers / Persons with significant control...

Andrew James COLE; Nationality British/American, Country of residence: United States, Occupation: Chief Executive (of Liberty Global PLC)

James T'Sung Jen GIBBONS; Nationality Malaysian, Country of residence: England, Occupation: Evp Corporate Development

Anil Kumar JHINGAN; Nationality British, Country of residence: United Kingdom, Occupation Evp Corporate Development

Sir Paul Roderick Clucas MARSHALL; Nationality British, Country of residence: England, Occupation: Fund Manager

Alan James MCCORMICK; Nationality British, Country of residence: United Arab Emirates, Occupation: Managing Director

Alan James Mccormick; Has significant influence or control over the trustees of a trust

Andrew Ferguson NEIL; Nationality British, Country of residence: France, Occupation: Director

Mark Lyle SCHNEIDER; Nationality British/American, Country of residence: England, Occupation: Business Consultant

Mark Alan STOLESON; Nationality Maltese, Country of residence: United Arab Emirates, Occupation: Chief Executive Officer

Mark Alan Stoleson; Has significant influence or control over the trustees of a trust

Christopher Lincoln Chandler; Nationality New Zealander, Has significant influence or control over the trustees of a trust, Country of residence: United Arab Emirates

Discovery Communications Europe Limited, Nature of control... Ownership of shares / voting rights – More than 25% but not more than 50%

Risk of WP:OR with this approach. Either this has been reported by reliable sources and it can be included, or we should leave it out. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Companies House should be an acceptable source under the terms of WP:PRIMARY - certainly for the information listed above without falling fould of WP:OR. This could then be supported by articles such as [This one in The Sun] If you add in talk of international expansion [Bloomberg News Dec 2021] there could be scope for an All Perspectives article.

Jpmaytum (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Neil as chairman of what?

Andrew Neil was said to be the chairman of GB News, but what exact entity was he chairman of? Was it All Perspectives Limited, or some other entity, such as an editorial board? -- The Anome (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

All Perspective Ltd finances GB News. It is a Dubai based purely foreign owned entity (cf. service.gov.uk, pressgazette.co.uk). The CEO of GB News was also non-British, namely the Australian Angelos Frangopoulos. Andrew Neil was not involved in that. He was a leading figure amongst the presenters. We saw what little power he had, as figures from Rupert Murdoch's Talk Radio (again, foreign owned media) and Nigel Farage took over, set the agenda, and the show become a pure opinion piece. Drusus 0 (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ownership

It is always in the interest of a country to know the sources (esp. in terms of nationality) of financing and ownership (CEO) of its news stations. For example if you look at the Wiki entry of Ruptly or Euronews, the owners and financiers are clearly mentioned within the first few paragraphs. Just by calling itself ‘GB’ does not make GB News immune to the relevance of this information.

Therefore clearly sourced information as to the Australian leadership of GB News (Angelos Frangopoulos) and the Emirati financial sources of GB News are relevant additions to the article. That is, that GB News (despite its name) be neither British owned nor financed, is very relevant. Just as much as knowing that Ruptly UK is neither British owned nor financed. Again, this is not a 'non-constructive' addition, since, if, for example, the BBC or ITV-News or Channel 4 News or Sky News UK were financed by non-British sources, then that would be very relevant to readers of their respective articles too. Drusus 0 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

COVID misinformation

Surprised there's nothing here about it yet. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/14/farage-factor-gb-news-eyes-brexit-party-associates https://fullfact.org/health/covid-vaccines-heart-disease/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/gb-news-dan-wootton-complants-ofcom-b1867041.html SmartSE (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comparison with LBC

Is it really appropriate to compare the YouTube subscribers of a television news channel like GB News with the YouTube subscribers of a talk radio station like LBC? Surely it would be better to compare with another TV news channel like Sky News? Jpmaytum (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Elibablity as source for citations

Main page: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Reliability of GB News as a source for citations

I am requesting a discussion for a consensus on the status of GB News in regards to whether it should or should not be used as a source for citations. I'd request another editor then please add GB News to the sources section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with whatever consensus is arrived at, as I'm not clear on how exactly to go about doing this.

Please add your thoughts and views to the relevant section of this linked page here. Helper201 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Darren Grimes as former on air staff

Darren Grimes states on Twitter that he is on vacation and will be back on his show on Saturday. What credible source is there to prove that Darren Grimes is in fact a "former on air staff" member? Kingjeff (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

To be free

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You can not answer all my questions 87.74.216.200 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Correct grammar in banners

The expression "further arrested" has appeared in the last few days. Surely the correct terminology is "rearrested"? 79.73.3.174 (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You are surrounded to be the peoples Chanel that’s why I watch you you have got so toxic feel so let done 92.30.224.226 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Carol vorderman dress code

Does Carol Vorderman dress code really matter to this news Channel and allow guest speakers to comment on her “tits hanging out” Absolutely violating and discriminating 86.25.171.208 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion about the article, which does not mention Carol Vorderman. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Page is misleading

Page is misleading, inaccurate and makes light of what GBNews is doing. It categorically is not a news channel, has been fined by Ofcom more than once and is tanking in the ratings. Remove your personal bias and call a spade a spade, not a news channel. 2A01:4B00:D307:D500:7CDD:88D3:45D0:AE42 (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes please " Remove your personal bias" - use sources do not make assertions KylieTastic (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The 'Reception' section needs some rejigging

The reception section begins with two very opposing points of view from Judith Woods versus Chris Bennion. The section states that both are from The Telegraph. At first glance I assumed there was an error and I did some googling to see which newspaper Chris Bennion is the reviewer for. Well, he is with The Telegraph, as is Judith Woods. And it seems they co-wrote a review article in which Judith blasts GB News and Chris gives a much more favourable review.

It's new to me to see a newspaper review article giving two quite different opinions - but that is by the by. Also note that the actual article is behind a paywall so I wasn't able to read it to understand the dynamic of the reviewer-versus-reviewer set up.

Anyway, all that is needed is a bit of a rewording.

It would scan just fine if the two people were reviewers for different newspaper titles, e.g. 'Judith of The Telegraph says it's rubbish while Chris of AnotherNewspaper says it's great'.

Changing the wording to something like 'Judith Woods and Chris Bennion, who co-wrote a review for The Telegraph, had different opinions on GB News' opening night broadcast. Judith thought it was rubbish, while Chris thought it was brill'. Obviously using slightly more encyclopaedic language, and using the inaccessible-paywall-article as the source material. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)