Which complaints to Ofcom or regulator watchdogs alleged GB News favored a particular political party and what evidence supported them?
Executive summary
Multiple complaints to Ofcom and other campaigners alleged GB News favoured the Conservative Party or Conservative figures; the best-documented regulatory findings and complaints relate to: (a) a live GB News “People’s Forum: The Prime Minister” with Rishi Sunak which drew 547 complaints and led Ofcom to impose a £100,000 fine for a serious breach of due impartiality [1] [2] [3]; and (b) several programmes presented by Conservative MPs (notably Sir Jacob Rees‑Mogg) that prompted Ofcom breach findings later quashed by the High Court after judicial review [4] [5] [6]. Campaign groups and opposition parties also lodged complaints alleging wider pro‑Conservative bias and use of partisan or misleading content [7] [8].
1. What complainants alleged: favouring a party through programming choices
Complaints argued GB News gave Conservative politicians and the government an uncontested or favourable platform. The Rishi Sunak “People’s Forum” was alleged to give the then‑prime minister an uncontested chance to promote government policy and drew 547 immediate complaints; Ofcom concluded the broadcast “failed to present a balanced range of significant viewpoints” and imposed a fine [1] [2] [3]. Separate public complaints focused on programmes presented by active Conservative MPs (Jacob Rees‑Mogg, Esther McVey, Philip Davies), which Ofcom at one point found to breach impartiality rules [9] [5].
2. Evidence complainants pointed to: format, presenter identity and lack of challenge
Complainants relied on programme format and presenter roles as evidence. In the Sunak Q&A Ofcom cited that audience questions, even if critical, were not followed up and the presenter did not intervene to offer alternative substantial viewpoints — a structural failing amounting to an “uncontested platform” for the Prime Minister [1] [3]. For the Rees‑Mogg shows, Ofcom’s original investigations treated the presence of an active politician presenting news‑related material as evidence of implicit partiality under Rules 5.1 and 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code [4] [6].
3. Regulatory findings and outcomes: fines, breach rulings and legal reversals
Ofcom’s investigation into the Sunak programme resulted in a statutory sanction recommendation and a £100,000 penalty for “serious and repeated” breach of due impartiality; Ofcom also directed GB News to broadcast its findings [2] [1]. Conversely, two Ofcom breach decisions about Rees‑Mogg programmes were quashed by the High Court after GB News won judicial review; the court found Ofcom had erred in law applying rules designed for news programmes to current affairs content and remitted the decisions to the regulator [4] [5] [6].
4. Political actors and campaigners as complainants — motives and framing
Complaints came from a mix of sources: opposition politicians (eg. Liberal Democrats’ letters), campaign groups (Good Law Project, Reliable Media), and large numbers of members of the public mobilised by NGOs. For example, Anna Sabine of the Liberal Democrats is named among complaints about a GB News segment on defendants’ “foreign‑sounding names” [10] [11]. Complainants framed their cases as defending accuracy and impartiality; GB News and some supporters called complaints “politically motivated” [10] [11] [12].
5. Alternative interpretations and limits of regulatory evidence
Ofcom’s rulings rested on editorial process and programme structure rather than internal party coordination; the evidence cited in public materials focuses on how programmes were presented and whether counter‑views were given due weight [3] [2]. GB News successfully argued in court that Ofcom had misapplied its rules in some instances, and the High Court’s quashing of decisions shows legal limits to Ofcom’s interpretation of “news” v “current affairs” and to asserting political bias merely from presenter identity [4] [6].
6. Broader context: pattern of complaints and public campaigns
GB News has been the target of repeated complaints — dozens to hundreds per programme in high‑profile cases — and campaign groups have mounted coordinated complaint drives (Good Law Project’s mass complaints over a homophobic slur, Reliable Media complaints on climate content) [13] [14] [8]. Media watchdog outputs note GB News has been found in breach of the code multiple times since launch, but legal challenges and Ofcom’s reconsiderations complicate a simple tally [9] [5] [15].
7. What sources do not say (limits of available reporting)
Available sources do not mention documentary evidence of direct collusion between GB News editorial teams and the Conservative Party, nor do they provide internal GB News editorial logs showing explicit party preference; reporting cites programme format, presenter choice and lack of alternative viewpoints as the evidential basis for complaints and Ofcom findings (not found in current reporting) [1] [3] [4].
Conclusion — what this means for the allegation that GB News favoured a party
Complaint campaigns and Ofcom investigations have anchored allegations in programme format and presenter roles, producing both regulatory sanctions (the Sunak fine) and legal pushback (Rees‑Mogg rulings quashed). The debate is now partly legal: whether structural editorial choices amount to unlawful partiality is subject to court interpretation as well as regulator judgment [2] [4] [6].