)
By April 9th 2020, half of UK adults had already been exposed to false claims about coronavirus. The Office of Communications (Ofcom), the UK’s ‘super regulator’, which oversees the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries, has reacted quickly to dispel misinformation around the Covid 19 pandemic. It has commissioned a weekly online survey of around 2,000 people to establish how people are consuming and engaging with news during the current crisis. One finding was that around a fifth of their respondents believe that the ‘mainstream media’ is exaggerating the seriousness of coronavirus.
Additionally, in response to their call centres receiving a high number of complaints about television programmes, maybe there’s not much else to do if you’re furloughed, Ofcom requested via a tweet, for people to complain using their online form. They can’t all be about Piers Morgan can they?
Complaints have been flowing in about the media coverage of the coronavirus. Some broadcasters and a splattering of high profile ‘celebrities’ have not been helping Ofcom’s cause when it comes to misinformation around coronavirus. However, Ofcom has been unusually quick to investigate any misleading claims. A sanction was imposed on Uckfield Community Radio Limited after a guest discussed his version of the causes and origins of Covid-19. These included the unfounded claims that the virus was linked to the roll out of 5G technology. Ofcom concluded the broadcaster breached Rule 2.1 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code;
2.1 Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services […] to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.
Ofcom considered this claim was a serious breach of the Code and the Licensee will now have to broadcast a statement as directed by the regulator.
Following this sanction, Ofcom warned broadcasters that it would be actively monitoring how the crisis was discussed in programming and that sanctions would be given to other broadcasters who helped spread false claims. Just as Ofcom had, Facebook and YouTube acted swiftly to offer the public protection from conspiracy theorists. They removed the London Lives’ programme London Real. This talk show was hosted by Brian Rose and interviewed the conspiracy theorist David Icke. In this programme Icke was making unsubstantiated claims linking the roll out of 5G technology to the spread of the Coronavirus.
Unfortunately, this unfounded 5G link to the coronavirus had already gained enough traction to lead some idiots to set fire to phone masts. Eamonn Holmes, presenter of Good Morning Britain added to the problem by saying, "[N]o-one should attack or damage or do anything like that, but it's very easy to say it is not true because it suits the state narrative. That's all I would say, as someone with an inquiring mind."
Holme’s statement prompted over four hundred complaints to Ofcom.
The following day Holmes’ inquiring mind led him to ‘clarify’ that the audience may have ‘misinterpreted’ his words by asserting there was “no scientific evidence to substantiate any of those 5G theories. I hope that clears that up." One assumes too that ITV very much hoped that would clear that up. This was not the end of crackpot theories though.
On the same day as Holmes’ clarification, London Live aired a further interview with David Icke but this time, not on YouTube but on its broadcast channel. Because of the different levels of media regulation in the UK, this broadcast fell under Ofcom’s oversight. This interview did not contain any discussion about 5G technology, but Icke did come out with plenty of other theories. Ofcom was particularly concerned that David Icke’s unusual views were not challenged enough during the interview. Icke considered the rationale behind the official health advice aimed at reducing the spread of the virus, were ‘to further the ambitions of a clandestine cult rather than to protect public health’. When quizzed about this the Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden thought that Ofcom would take appropriate action.
In London Live’s defence, they had transmitted a statement on a slate at the beginning and end of each programme part which read:
“The views contained in this programme are those of the individuals articulating them and not necessarily those of London Live. For advice on Covid-19 please visit www.gov.uk/coronavirus”.
Not the most strongly worded statement to distant Icke’s views from the channel and additionally Ofcom did not consider the interviewer robustly challenged Icke’s views. It was considered too little to protect vulnerable viewers in this very dangerous time.
Ofcom did take action and released a statement announcing that it was imposing a sanction on London Live. It considered the programme contained potentially harmful content about the coronavirus pandemic. Ofcom was ‘particularly concerned by his comments casting doubt on the motives behind official health advice to protect the public from the virus’.
Loveworld Television Network, a religious channel, also blew caution to the wind, linking 5G technology with coronavirus and went a step further by suggesting that hydroxychloroquine was a “cure” for the Coronavirus. Loveworld used a Fox News interview as part of evidence for the claim and in response to the Ofcom investigation cited President Trump’s extolling of hydroxychloroquine in its defence. Unsurprisingly they were found in breach of 2.1 and 5.1 (Due Accuracy) and sanctioned by Ofcom.
So, what of freedom of expression? As citizens in a democracy should we be concerned that the regulator is clamping down too quickly and too tightly on those who are questioning the legitimacy of the Government’s motives? Should those on the fringes be given airtime so that viewers whose minds are naturally inquisitive, much like mainstream media inspector Holmes, can get the opportunity to alternative viewpoints?
London Live argued that broadcasters should have the ability both to inform their audience and hold power to account, by questioning ‘the official government version of events’. Ofcom thought not so much if such information could be damaging to public health and not robustly challenged. Ofcom did not contradict London Lives’ argument that it was important broadcasters question Government policy and hold them to account. They pointed out that the code is flexible enough to enable broadcasters to include contentious ideas in their output but at the same time needed to ensure their audience was protected from potentially harmful material, as per Rule 2.1 above.
London Live failed to challenge David Icke’s views adequately. They could learn from the incident at ITV where Ofcom decided that Holmes did not breach the guidelines because of a timely intervention from Alice Beer, another presenter on the programme. Beer wisely dismissed the theory linking 5G and coronavirus as ‘not true and it is incredibly stupid’. Unusually, someone spouting a conspiracy theory was actually helped by having a Beer at hand.
*Always broadcast responsibly.
Having spent over 20 years working as an editorial broadcast advisor for both public service and commercial broadcasters, Jennifer Young is currently in her second year as a Doctoral Researcher. Her research is on comedy and broadcast regulation.