A sentence would usually not be enough to satisfy impartiality rules
When those who once held the scales of public trust set them down, they sometimes reveal how they were holding them all along. Michael Grade, the recently departed chair of Britain's broadcasting regulator Ofcom, has used his newfound freedom to defend GB News and suggest that impartiality rules are far easier to satisfy than his former colleagues believe — remarks that have unsettled the architects of those very rules. The episode raises a question that haunts every institution of oversight: whether the guardian was protecting the standard, or quietly redefining it.
- Grade's post-Ofcom candour — declaring himself 'free of the shackles' and suggesting a single scripted sentence can satisfy impartiality requirements — has struck former regulators as a confession dressed as a defence.
- The people who actually wrote Britain's broadcasting standards are alarmed: Chris Banatvala, who drafted Ofcom's code, says Grade appears to have fundamentally misunderstood the legislation he was appointed to enforce.
- At the heart of the dispute is what impartiality actually demands — not a token nod to the other side, but 'due weight' given to opposing views, a standard critics say GB News has routinely failed to meet.
- Ofcom has moved quickly to distance itself from its former chair, insisting his personal opinions do not reflect the regulator's policy — but the institutional damage may be harder to contain than the statement suggests.
- The deeper question now circulating inside British broadcasting is whether Grade's permissive approach to GB News was a misreading of the rules or a deliberate reshaping of them — and his own words have given critics powerful evidence for the latter.
Michael Grade has spent his first weeks after leaving Ofcom doing something departing regulators almost never do: courting controversy. Declaring himself free of the constraints of office, he has mounted a public defence of GB News, the right-leaning broadcaster that has reshaped British television, pushing back against those who say Ofcom failed to properly scrutinise the channel. Most provocatively, he suggested that compliance with impartiality rules was often straightforward — sometimes requiring no more than a single sentence in a script.
That claim has alarmed the people who wrote the rules he was meant to enforce. Chris Banatvala, who founded Ofcom's standards division and drafted its code, said Grade appeared to have fundamentally misunderstood the legislation. Impartiality, Banatvala explained, requires broadcasters to give 'due weight' to opposing viewpoints — not merely to acknowledge them in passing. A single sentence, he said, would almost never suffice. Stewart Purvis, a former chief executive of ITN, called Grade's comments 'quite shocking,' suggesting he had never fully shed a generational instinct to view regulation as an obstacle rather than a public trust.
Grade has rejected any suggestion that GB News received special treatment, insisting all broadcasters are held to the same standard and that editorial difference reflects freedom of expression, not regulatory failure. Ofcom itself has since distanced itself from his remarks. But for many inside British broadcasting, the damage is already done — not to GB News, but to the credibility of the oversight that was meant to hold it to account.
Roger Mosey, a former head of BBC Television News, offered a measured but damning verdict: Grade's arrival at Ofcom had seemed promising, but his tenure was not his finest hour. The regulator appeared to lean backward to accommodate GB News, Mosey suggested, and then contorted its own decisions to justify that posture. What Grade has now revealed, in speaking freely, is the thinking that may have driven those contortions — and whether it represents genuine misunderstanding or deliberate intent, his critics now have his own words to work with.
Michael Grade, the recently departed chair of Ofcom, has spent his first weeks of freedom doing something regulators almost never do: courting controversy. "I'm free of the shackles," he said recently, and he has used that newfound liberty to mount a spirited defence of GB News, the right-leaning broadcaster that has reshaped British television since its launch. In a series of radio interviews, Grade pushed back against critics who say Ofcom failed to properly scrutinize the channel's approach to news coverage. The BBC's Today programme could "absolutely" have a politician as presenter, he suggested. GB News's detractors, he argued, were simply "embarrassed" because the channel "speaks to the agenda of the majority" on issues like Brexit and immigration. Most provocatively, he claimed the network had "actually got better and better" at meeting broadcasting rules, and suggested that compliance was straightforward—sometimes requiring only "a sentence in a script."
That last remark has alarmed the people who actually wrote the rules Grade was meant to enforce. Stewart Purvis, a former chief executive of ITN and someone involved in shaping broadcast standards, called Grade's comments "quite shocking." Chris Banatvala, who founded Ofcom's standards division and drafted its code, went further, saying Grade appeared to have fundamentally misunderstood the legislation he was tasked with administering. The impartiality rules, Banatvala explained, require broadcasters to give "due weight" to opposing viewpoints when covering controversial topics—not merely to acknowledge them in passing. A single sentence, he said flatly, would usually not suffice. He painted a picture of what he sees on some channels: a presenter and three guests in agreement, with one dissenting voice. "The idea that sometimes only one sentence can achieve the required impartiality is absurd," he said.
Grade has consistently rejected the suggestion that GB News has been treated with special leniency. All broadcasters, he insists, must follow the same rules. If GB News pursues a different news agenda than the BBC, that reflects editorial choice, not regulatory failure. "That's good in the name of freedom of expression," he told the BBC. Ofcom itself has since distanced itself from Grade's personal views, issuing a statement that the former chairman's opinions do not represent the regulator's policy. Yet the damage, in the eyes of critics, may already be done. Grade's remarks have effectively confirmed what many inside broadcasting have suspected for years: that Ofcom, under his leadership, took a permissive approach to GB News, one that some believe amounted to a deliberate relaxation of standards.
The question of why this happened points to Grade's own history. At 83, he is a veteran of British broadcasting, having held senior roles at the BBC, ITV, and Channel 4. He belongs to a generation of broadcasters who grew up viewing regulation as an obstacle—a force that imposed pre-transmission checks and sometimes banned programmes outright. That mindset, Purvis suggested, never fully left him. "Michael was still sort of fighting yesterday's war against regulators," Purvis said. Grade was appointed to Ofcom in 2022 by Boris Johnson's government, after the failed attempt to install Paul Dacre, the former Daily Mail editor, in the role. His broadcasting credentials were seen as a strength; his lack of expertise in online harms and some of his past political comments—including criticism of "the woke brigade"—were noted but apparently overlooked.
Roger Mosey, a former head of BBC Television News, offered a sympathetic but critical assessment. Grade is charming and warm, Mosey said, and his arrival at Ofcom had initially seemed promising. But his tenure was not his finest hour. Mosey acknowledged that there is nothing inherently wrong with a broadcaster having a different editorial stance. The problem, he suggested, is that Ofcom appeared to lean backward to accommodate GB News, apparently believing it was the right thing to do politically. "The problem is, it then got into contorting itself in its regulatory decisions," Mosey said. What Grade has now revealed, in his post-departure interviews, is the thinking that may have driven those contortions. Whether that represents a genuine misunderstanding of the rules or a deliberate effort to reshape them remains contested—but the former Ofcom chair's own words have given his critics powerful ammunition.
Notable Quotes
I'm free of the shackles— Michael Grade, former Ofcom chair
The idea that sometimes only one sentence can achieve the required impartiality is absurd— Chris Banatvala, Ofcom's founding director of standards
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter what Grade says now that he's left the job? Isn't he just a private citizen expressing opinions?
Because he was the person who set the tone for how Ofcom treated GB News while he was in charge. When the founding architect of Ofcom's standards code says Grade misunderstood the rules, that's not abstract—it suggests the regulator may have been enforcing them incorrectly for years.
But Grade says all broadcasters follow the same rules. Why single out GB News?
The issue isn't that GB News is being punished unfairly. It's that everyone may be being held to a weaker standard than the law actually requires. If a single sentence can satisfy impartiality rules, then the rules have effectively been gutted.
Is Grade deliberately trying to weaken broadcasting standards, or is he genuinely confused?
That's the question people are wrestling with. Some think he's fighting old battles against regulation from his era. Others think he knows exactly what he's doing—using his credibility to reshape the rules after the fact.
What does GB News itself say about all this?
They say they follow the code and outperform other news channels. They also say they're being attacked by the media establishment for daring to have a different agenda. Grade's comments essentially validate that narrative.
So what happens next?
That's unclear. Ofcom has distanced itself from Grade, but the damage is done. The question now is whether anyone will actually investigate whether the regulator weakened its enforcement under his watch.