UK Regulator Finds GB News Guilty Of Broadcasting A 'Serious Conspiracy Theory'

Mark Steyn and Naomi Wolf are on the naughty step

I can’t quite get my head around this. Ofcom have today published the result of their investigation of a GB News broadcast hosted by Mark Steyn with Dr Naomi Wolf as a guest.

UK MEDIA REGULATOR OFCOM GOES AFTER ME, MARK STEYN, FOR TELLING THE TRUTH

Here is what Ofcom say:

This programme included an interview between presenter Mark Steyn and a guest, Dr Naomi Wolf. During the interview, Naomi Wolf made serious claims about the Covid-19 vaccine, including that its rollout amounted to a pre-meditated crime – “mass murder” – and was comparable to the actions of “doctors in pre-Nazi Germany”. Ofcom received 422 complaints that alleged these comments were “dangerous” and included “misinformation” that went “unopposed”.

We also took into account that the Licensee said that it was a “mistake” to think that “outspoken and combative language advocating a view that seems outside the bounds of ‘polite discourse’ must be harmful in some way", and its view that “[e]xpressions of concern and warning do not necessarily equate to harm”. However, we did not accept the Licensee’s position. As referenced above, we considered Naomi Wolf had been presented as a figure of authority regarding vaccine safety and accordingly, in our view, her opinions would have been likely to carry weight with the audience. In particular, we took into account that there was an absence of any opposing views, challenge or proper contextualisation, which further served to reinforce her authority and the credibility of her claims. As set out above, the presenter at points agreed with Naomi Wolf and appeared to endorse her as a credible expert. We did not therefore agree that these claims were simply “expressions of concern and warning”. We considered the claims – in particular that the vaccine rollout was a pre-meditated crime i.e. “mass murder” – amounted to the promotion of a serious, unchallenged conspiracy theory which was presented with authority. These claims had the potential to impact on viewers’ decisions about their health and were therefore potentially harmful. As a result, it was incumbent upon the Licensee, when broadcasting such content, to include adequate audience protection, in accordance with Rule 2.1.

Excuse me? The most common interpretation of ‘conspiracy theory’ is “hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish”. In that sense, it is used almost universally now as a derogatory term to describe a theory which has little or no basis in fact, is highly implausible, not credible, proposed by a ‘conspiracy theorist’ who is generally regarded as not being a credible person, unhinged, away with the fairies, at the very least seriously misguided. Wiki says:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation,^[3][4][5] when other explanations are more probable.^[3][6][7] The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence.^[8] A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians.^[9][10][11]

Conspiracy theories are generally designed to resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and absence of evidence for it are misinterpreted as evidence of its truth,^[8][12] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven.^[1][13] Studies have linked belief in conspiracy theories to distrust of authority and political cynicism.^[14][15][16] Some researchers suggest that conspiracist ideation—belief in conspiracy theories—may be psychologically harmful or pathological,^[17][18] and that it is correlated with lower analytical thinking, low intelligence, psychological projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism.^[19] Psychologists usually attribute belief in conspiracy theories to a number of psychopathological conditions such as paranoia, schizotypy, narcissism, and insecure attachment,^[9] or to a form of cognitive bias called "illusory pattern perception".^[20][21] However, a 2020 review article found that most cognitive scientists view conspiracy theorizing as typically nonpathological, given that unfounded belief in conspiracy is common across cultures both historical and contemporary, and may arise from innate human tendencies towards gossip, group cohesion, and religion.^[9]

So how can an authoritative figure, or even somebody presented as an authoritative figure, be accused of promoting on air a serious conspiracy theory? It’s a contradiction in terms. The public will either accept that Dr Wolf is a credible authority and therefore interpret her claims as serious allegations of wrong-doing, comparable with past medical crimes against humanity in Germany, or they will dismiss her as a credible authority and relegate her statements to the status of a conspiracy theory. They can’t do both. They’re mutually exclusive. Therefore I can’t see the public being harmed by this. Unless of course the UK media watchdog takes a particularly dim view of the British public and regards us all as gullible simpletons. Maybe they do. But their low opinion of the British public should not be the basis for imposing censorship and fines upon media companies like GB News which dare to have outspoken presenters and outspoken guests such as Mark Steyn and Naomi Wolf.

Many, many viewers are going to sorely miss Mark Steyn on GB News because of this ridiculous and unjustified ruling.