Former GB News presenter loses High Court battle to quash Ofcom decisions
The regulator ruled that two episodes of Mark Steyn’s show, aired in 2022, amounted to breaches of its broadcasting code.
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
A former GB News presenter has lost a bid to quash two Ofcom decisions that his show breached its rules which the High Court was told “killed” his career.
Mark Steyn took action against the regulator over its decisions in 2023 that two of his shows in 2022, which both related to the Covid vaccine rollout, amounted to breaches of its broadcasting code.
A hearing in London in June was told by Mr Steyn’s lawyers that the decisions lacked “clarity and coherence”, but barristers for Ofcom said there was no “realistic basis” to claim it had “obviously gone wrong” in its reasoning.
In a ruling on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Farbey dismissed Mr Steyn’s claims, stating that Ofcom was “entitled to conclude” that the shows breached its rules and that its reasons for its decisions were “detailed and comprehensive”.
The regulator’s decisions related to two broadcasts of the Canadian presenter’s primetime show on GB News, which began with a monologue called The Steyn Line.
In an episode on April 21 2022, Mr Steyn gave a monologue on the rollout of Covid vaccines, based on UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data.
Ofcom ruled on March 6 2023 that the show breached its rules as it gave a “materially misleading interpretation” of the figures “without sufficient challenge or counterweight”, which it said risked “harm to viewers”.
A second show on October 4 2022 featured an interview with author Naomi Wolf, which the watchdog said included her likening the vaccine rollout to a “mass murder” which was comparable to the actions of “doctors in pre-Nazi Germany”.
The regulator received 422 complaints following the interview, ruling on May 9 last year that GB News failed to take “adequate steps to protect viewers” from “potentially harmful content”, labelling Dr Wolf’s comments as promoting “a serious conspiracy theory”.
Ofcom was not ‘obviously wrong’ to insist that broadcasters avoid the risk that vaccinated individuals be caused alarm
No statutory sanction was imposed for either breach, but GB News was requested to attend a meeting to discuss its approach to compliance with the code.
Mr Steyn, who no longer works for the broadcaster, had asked the judge to quash both decisions, with his lawyer, Jonathan Price, claiming that they had “killed his career” and had an “obvious chilling effect”.
But Jessica Boyd KC, for Ofcom, told the court in written submissions that both decisions were “correct” as the shows were “likely to have a significant bearing on (viewers’) health decisions in the context of a continuing pandemic”, adding that the rights of broadcasters to freedom of expression “are not unqualified”.
Discussing the decision related to the April 2022 broadcast, Mrs Justice Farbey said that Ofcom gave “proper and adequate” reasons explaining why it believed the show could cause “potential harm”.
She said: “In the context of the discussion of a virus that had caused serious illness and death throughout the United Kingdom and across the world, Ofcom was far from ‘obviously wrong’ to insist that broadcasters did not undermine the ability of audiences to make properly informed choices about vaccination.
“Ofcom was not ‘obviously wrong’ to insist that broadcasters avoid the risk that vaccinated individuals be caused alarm.”
The judge also said that the “absence of challenge” of Dr Wolf’s views by Mr Steyn in the October 2022 interview was “striking”, adding that Mr Steyn “plainly endorsed” some of her comments.
She said: “It was open to Ofcom, on any standard of review, to regard the claim as controversial and as having the potential to have an impact on viewers’ decisions about their health.
“On this basis, Ofcom was entitled to conclude that the broadcast of the claim of state killing was potentially harmful.”