Today programme cannot be hosted by politician, Michael Grade wrong on that and GB News

Michael Grade, the outgoing chair of Ofcom, has incorrectly claimed that a politician could present the BBC’s Today programme — a suggestion that surprised even the interviewer and drew an immediate rebuke from one of the programme’s own presenters. Asked by Katie Razzall on BBC Radio 4’s The Media Show whether Ofcom’s rules would prevent a politician from hosting the programme outside the news bulletins, Grade replied: “Absolutely, absolutely, why not?” When a startled Razzall pressed him, he added: “Well, Nick Robinson might be out of a job. He might not be happy to hear that.” Robinson, listening to the interview, posted on social media: “Can anyone remind me when parliament, the public, licence fee payers or anyone else was asked their opinion on this?” None of the 204 people who commented on his post could provide an answer. The regulator later distanced itself from Grade’s personal views, stating that they “do not represent Ofcom policy”.

Grade’s remark reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulator’s own rules. Under the Broadcasting Code, politicians are prohibited from presenting news programmes. Ofcom itself classifies Today — alongside PM, The World at One and Newsnight — as “news” in its published findings. The code is unambiguous: a politician cannot act as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in a news programme unless there is exceptional editorial justification, in which case their political allegiance must be made clear. By contrast, Nigel Farage’s 7pm weekday programme on GB News is classified by Ofcom as “current affairs”, not news. This distinction is crucial. Politicians are permitted to present current affairs programmes, even when those programmes are overwhelmingly devoted to the day’s news — analysis of GB News content found that almost 93% of it concerns the day’s events. Grade is therefore wrong to suggest that the two formats are comparable under the regulator’s own framework. The real question is why Ofcom treats programmes with near-identical formats so differently in the first place.

The regulatory landscape

The distinction between “news” and “current affairs” has been tested in court. GB News successfully challenged Ofcom in the High Court over decisions that found its use of politicians such as Jacob Rees-Mogg as presenters breached the Broadcasting Code. The High Court ruled that Ofcom had erred in its interpretation of Rule 5.3, stating that the prohibition applies only to “news programmes” and not to any programme containing news content. Following that judgment, Ofcom withdrew other impartiality investigations into broadcasts featuring politicians and issued revised guidance. The updated framework makes explicit that if an MP presents news in a non-news programme, their status as an MP is a relevant factor in considering due impartiality. The “exceptional circumstances” under which a politician could deliver a news update are now defined as those that “cannot be controlled or foreseen by the broadcaster”. Meanwhile, public opinion appears at odds with the regulator’s approach: YouGov polling indicates that 51% of voters believe politicians should not be allowed to present current affairs shows.

Grade’s other claims during his series of “free of the shackles” interviews have also come under scrutiny. Speaking to Politics Home, he argued that complying with due impartiality is “not difficult — sometimes it’s only a sentence in a script”. That assertion is difficult to square with the Broadcasting Code itself, which requires broadcasters to give “due weight” to alternative viewpoints on controversial matters and to include “an appropriately wide range of significant views” either within a programme or across clearly linked and timely programmes. These are not incidental requirements but sit at the heart of how due impartiality is supposed to operate. Ofcom has itself found GB News in breach of the code on multiple occasions, including when a presenter repeated a homophobic slur and when programmes featuring politicians as news presenters were judged to have broken impartiality rules.

In a March interview with the Daily Telegraph, Grade said: “I would die in a ditch rather than have Ofcom telling broadcasters who they can and can’t employ as presenters.” That position overlooks the fact that the regulator already does exactly that: the Broadcasting Code prohibits politicians from presenting news. More broadly, freedom of expression in UK broadcasting has never been absolute — the requirement for due impartiality is itself a restriction on editorial freedom, alongside prohibitions on political advertising, requirements for due accuracy, and rules against misleading audiences or causing harm.

When challenged on its handling of channels such as GB News, Ofcom frequently argues that it regulates individual programmes, not channels. To a point, that is true. But the Broadcasting Code allows due impartiality to be secured across a series of “editorially linked” or “timely” programmes — a mechanism routinely used by rolling news services to achieve compliance over time rather than within a single broadcast. The legislation and the code expressly permit Ofcom to look beyond a single programme when assessing impartiality, meaning it is not restricted to considering programmes in isolation.

Grade has also suggested that criticism of Ofcom’s approach to GB News stems from discomfort with the channel’s editorial agenda. That misses the point. There has been little serious criticism of GB News for choosing different stories or pursuing a different perspective. The concern is whether Ofcom is properly enforcing the rules that parliament has given it — ensuring due impartiality on matters of controversy and preventing audiences from being materially misled. As two former Ofcom officials involved in drafting and enforcing the code have noted, the issue is not what stories GB News chooses to cover, but whether the regulator is applying its own code consistently and treating the channel the same as any other broadcaster.