Exclusive: FOI Data Suggests Ofcom is Policing Certain Outlets Far More Aggressively Than Others (Bet You Can Guess Which)

Exclusive: FOI Data Suggests Britain’s Broadcasting Regulator is Policing Certain Outlets Far More Aggressively Than Others (Bet You Can Guess Which)

“Making communications work for some, not everyone”

 

JJ STARKEY

I’ve finally received a response to the Freedom of Information request sent to Ofcom—Britain’s government-backed broadcasting regulator—raising further questions about the organisation’s impartiality.

The aim? To see whether their enforcement record shows signs of bias.

That question has only grown more urgent.

Last month, the Online Safety Act came into full force, handing Ofcom sweeping new powers over digital content—including the ability to order takedowns of material it deems “illegal,” such as “hate speech” and “terrorism-related material”.

Platforms that fail to comply with Ofcom’s rules can be fined up to £18 million or 10% of their global revenue.

The request was simple: how many public complaints were lodged against each major UK broadcaster between 1 January 2020 and 1 April 2025, and how many of those led to investigations, breaches, and sanctions.

The results:

GB News

• Complaints received: 25,947
• Investigations opened: 10
• Breaches found: 8
• Sanctions issued: 1

GB News began broadcasting in June 2021—meaning it’s been on air for significantly less time than its legacy counterparts. Yet it’s the only major outlet in the last few years to receive a formal sanction.

ITV

• Complaints received: 243,772
• Investigations opened: 8
• Breaches found: 2
• Sanctions issued: 0

ITV received nearly ten times the complaints that GB News did. Yet they’ve never been sanctioned.

Channel 4

• Complaints received: 26,245
• Investigations opened: 5
• Breaches found: 3
• Sanctions issued: 0

Roughly the same number of complaints as GB News. Half the number of investigations. Less breaches. Zero sanctions.

LBC

• Complaints received: (Note the typo, I think this is meant to be 50,800 rather than 50,80)
• Investigations opened: 4
• Breaches found: 2
• Sanctions issued: 0

Similar sentiments.

Across the board, GB News has been investigated at a significantly higher rate relative to the number of complaints and time on air—and remains the only outlet to face formal disciplinary action.

This is not definitive proof of institutional bias—we don’t know the subject and veracity of each complaint. Some could spurious, others malicious—part of a coordinated effort maybe.

But in a regulatory framework that claims to be impartial and complaint-driven, the numbers should tell a different story.

If Ofcom truly applied standards evenly, there would be at least some parity between complaint volume, breach findings, and resulting sanctions.

That’s not what this data reveals, and past anecdotal evidence paints an equally troubling picture.

Take the case of Mark Steyn.

Last October, Steyn argued that Ofcom had “effectively killed” his broadcasting career after rulings against two GB News shows he hosted in 2022.

One of those broadcasts, in which Steyn interviewed author Naomi Wolf, partly led to a personal fine of £50,000. Wolf had likened the Covid vaccine rollout to “mass murder” and compared it to pre-Nazi Germany.

Ofcom declared the segment a “serious conspiracy theory” and penalised GB News for failing to “protect viewers.”

Ironically, in the same ruling, Ofcom stated: “Broadcasters are free to transmit programmes that include controversial and challenging views about any topic, including Covid-19 vaccines or conspiracy theories.”

They took particular issue with Wolf’s pre-Nazi reference. Yet when LBC host James O’Brien called anyone who denies Donald Trump is a fascist a “liar”—one of the most outspoken advocates of free speech—last October they didn’t blink.

Between 2020 and mid-May 2024, Ofcom received 926 complaints about O’Brien. Not a single one was investigated.

In October 2024, Ofcom also slapped GB News with an unprecedented £100,000 fine for giving then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak a “mostly uncontested platform to promote the policies and performance of his Government”.

This, despite the fact that several of GB News’ presenters—and this is putting it mildly—had been fiercely critical of Sunak, routinely describing him as a progressive in Conservative clothing.

Then there’s the case of Laura Dodsworth and Toby Young.

In 2021, Dodsworth and Young challenged Ofcom over Sky News’ partnership with the Behavioural Insights Team—then-partially owned by the UK Cabinet Office—to promote the government’s Net Zero agenda, especially among young viewers. They argued this breached Ofcom’s own rules on covert influence.

Four months later, Ofcom dismissed the complaint. Why? Because climate science is “broadly settled.” In other words, psychological manipulation is fine—so long as it supports the correct narrative.

Ofcom Chief Executive Melanie Dawes’s career history points to a clear progressive bias in itself.

In 2019, she held the role of Permanent Secretary Champion for Diversity and Inclusion for the Civil Service—a position rooted in promoting ideological alignment.

She has also worked closely with the Patchwork Foundation, a group explicitly focused on increasing representation from traditionally “underrepresented” communities.

Dawes now oversees Britain’s most powerful online speech regulator—with the authority to order takedowns, silence platforms, and sanction outlets. And she’s wasting no time.

Within days of the Online Safety Act coming into force in March, Ofcom fired off dozens of enforcement notices to various websites, social media platforms, and search engines.

In response, several sites, including BitChute and Gab—both popular among independent journalists—have already geo-blocked UK users to avoid potential penalties.

Bottom line: if these FOI stats are anything to go by, as is the anecdotal evidence, we’re staring down the barrel of more targeted censorship—and it’s likely coming fast.

Further Reading:

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.