The Rise of GB News and the Making of a Mini-Murdoch

[Social Media]

 

The Rise of GB News and the Making of a Mini-Murdoch

 

There is growing reason to be concerned as GB News edges closer to rivaling the BBC in ratings. At the centre of this media shift stands Sir Paul Marshall, hedge fund manager and media investor, whose ambitions and ideological bearings are reshaping the UK’s broadcast landscape. A recent speech he delivered at Oxford, titled “Reflections of a Reluctant Media Owner,” revealed not only his motives but also the contradictions in his vision for British journalism.

 

Sir Paul owns significant stakes in GB News, Unherd, and The Spectator, and predicts a near future where just two dominant news outlets will remain: the BBC and GB News. Despite GB News reportedly losing over £100 million so far, he seems undeterred. His analysis of the media landscape starts conventionally enough. He observes the dominance of right-leaning national newspapers and criticises the BBC for perceived left-wing bias, echoing a common view on the political right. Yet, for someone ostensibly opposed to tribalism, his own views seem deeply tribal.

 

He champions The Times as the only paper offering genuine political diversity, which might surprise its more critical readers. His disdain for the “metropolitan” worldview is clear, and he considers the BBC's fact-checking unit, BBC Verify, “an abuse of taxpayer money” that “should be shut down.” More broadly, he describes the BBC as “the propaganda arm of the state”—a phrase used not long ago by GB News host Laurence Fox, who once tweeted, “You cannot loathe or despise the state propaganda arm @ [BBC] enough.”

 

Fox's recent reaction to a Sky News report about a car crashing into Liverpool fans—implying an establishment cover-up—speaks volumes about the conspiratorial undercurrents in GB News’ ideological orbit. That the perpetrator turned out to be a 53-year-old white former royal marine and that no riots occurred, contrary to what Fox appeared to predict, underscores how inflammatory speculation is sometimes at odds with reality.

 

While Sir Paul says he values heterodox thinking and open-mindedness, the roster at GB News—from Nigel Farage to Dan Wootton and climate change denier Neil Oliver—suggests otherwise. If his intention was to correct for bias, why assemble a cast from such a narrow ideological band? What societal problem does this investment in partisan television actually aim to solve?

 

GB News occasionally outpaces the BBC in ratings, particularly due to its active social media presence. But ratings are not the same as trust. Surveys by YouGov in 2023 and 2024 found that the BBC consistently outperformed GB News on public trust. The Reuters Institute confirmed this, placing the BBC at 62 percent trusted, while GB News managed only 29 percent.

 

Sir Paul criticises BBC programming decisions dating back decades, such as the abandonment of playing the national anthem daily under Tony Blair, which he says marked the moment patriotism was “quietly erased.” But what’s missing in his speech is any acknowledgment that extreme partisanship may not be the answer to perceived bias. Nor does he address whether a billionaire hedge fund manager is best suited to determine what impartial media should look like.

 

As someone mentioned by name in Sir Paul’s speech, I take particular interest in these contradictions. He describes me as one of the “biggest advocates of censorship and control narrative,” alongside Hillary Clinton and Ursula von der Leyen. This is presumably because of my role on Meta’s Oversight Board, which, contrary to his portrayal, often votes to restore wrongly removed content in the name of protecting free expression.

 

Free speech absolutists like Fox and Elon Musk see any moderation as censorship. Sir Paul doesn’t clearly state his own position. He worries about conspiracy theories and tribalism overtaking truth, but that seems precisely the purpose GB News has come to serve.

 

When social media spread disinformation after the Southport killings—fueling hatred and violence against Muslims—some of those posts, including calls to burn mosques, remained online. Is removing such content censorship or responsible moderation? Are efforts to verify facts and de-escalate hatred really elitist overreach?

 

Sir Paul has achieved much: founding Unherd, sustaining The Spectator, and supporting philanthropic causes. But as he charts a course toward becoming a mini-Murdoch, it’s essential we scrutinize the consequences. His growing media empire doesn’t just challenge the BBC’s ratings—it challenges our collective understanding of truth, balance, and responsibility in public discourse.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Independent  2025-06-07

 

 

[GanDoonToonPet]

Nobody can argue that GB News is largely a right-leaning channel but I'd rather have them than not. Since Sky News UK was sold to Comcast, and joined the monolith of left-leaning channels, they're the only one left.

 

Sad to hear that the Headliners show is going. It was mostly staffed by old school, lefty comedians and was an interesting new concept. At least we still have Free Speech Nation. 😊 

[gargamon]

The simple rubes need somewhere to get their false information, just like fox/newsmax etc in the US.

[roquefort]

Sir Paul is certainly correct in describing the BBC as the propaganda arm of the state. This became apparent during the 'pandemic' when any critical analysis of government policy (lockdowns, masking, social distancing, jabs, throwing free money at anyone who had a pulse and some who didn't) was brutally suppressed. The BBC's left-wing bias is not as blatant however as another state-owned outlet, Channel 4, although naturally the equally left-wing Independent doesn't even mention this.

 

Nor does it mention the principal reason GB News is losing money, a boycott by mainstream advertisers organised by left wing 'activists'. Should that be allowed in a democracy? All views are valid but some views are more valid than others? The censorship-industrial complex wields huge power in the UK, and Sir Paul is one of the few media owners with the cojones to fight back against its attempt to impose a single, dystopian narrative on world events.

[Red Forever]

3 hours ago, roquefort said:

Sir Paul is certainly correct in describing the BBC as the propaganda arm of the state. This became apparent during the 'pandemic' when any critical analysis of government policy (lockdowns, masking, social distancing, jabs, throwing free money at anyone who had a pulse and some who didn't) was brutally suppressed. The BBC's left-wing bias is not as blatant however as another state-owned outlet, Channel 4, although naturally the equally left-wing Independent doesn't even mention this.

 

Nor does it mention the principal reason GB News is losing money, a boycott by mainstream advertisers organised by left wing 'activists'. Should that be allowed in a democracy? All views are valid but some views are more valid than others? The censorship-industrial complex wields huge power in the UK, and Sir Paul is one of the few media owners with the cojones to fight back against its attempt to impose a single, dystopian narrative on world events.

To question whether a boycott by mainstream advertisers should be allowed in a democracy is all I needed to nail you as a far right GBbees fan.

Seen Farridge in Clacton lately?

Ha ha.

[johng]

Unfortunately GB News is little more than controlled opposition...I mean how could it be anything else as it is under the control of OFCOM.

 

A much better source of UK news comes from  UK Column obviously only available on the internet   https://www.ukcolumn.org/