Talk:GB News/Archive 1

Why so much emphasis on "Fox style" but almost none of party affiliations?
The page spends a weirdly large amount of space speculating about whether GB News will be like Fox, when even the BBC says this isn't useful or relevant. We don't know if GB News will be like anything.

What we do know is that many people involved in GB News are either members or supporters of right of centre parties. This is both more concrete and more relevant, given we have such little information about the programming.

If we insist on wildly speculating about the political slanting, shouldn't we focus on the things we do know rather than making a frankly pejorative comparison to a different news network in a different country which has different owners and a different audience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.168.196 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To be honest I'd prefer if we removed any speculation on what sort of content they'll put out, regardless of whether it's comparisons to Fox or references to party affiliation. It may be sourced, but I also find it to be a little bit WP:CRYSTAL. Better to wait until GB News is live, in my view. — Czello 10:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't agree. It's not speculation if it's well-sourced and it's also weird to think that things could possibly be different given the established political opinions of the commentators we know of and the quote "a very different view on the regulatory environment". Part of neutrality is not mincing words. News sources find a comparison to Fox relevant, so so do we. If the channel turns out to be left-wing propaganda then the information will still be relevant in the form: "Despite widespread suggestions prior to its launch that the channel would..." As for the BBC, even their analysts' opinion sections are deliberately very dry and it is unsurprising that they would say such things—it fits with their political provenance. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems a lil weasel words (the constant referencing to Fox) to put so much emphasis on predictions and soothsaying.Halbared (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Considering the fact that Ofcom already approved the channel for airing, which has strict rules regarding news channels being politically impartial in the United Kingdom, it seems quite obvious to me that it will not be following the likes of Fox News in terms of political bias. I mean the Guardian getting a say in this, really? Because their organization totally isn't politically biased itself or anything. GB News wouldn't stand a chance receiving a license from Ofcom had they stated their intentions were to be just as politically leaning as the Guardian. But once again British-based Wikipedia editors have this strange obsession with that outlet as though they are some sort of messenger from the Gods, even for its incredibly trivial video game reviews that nobody reads of all things. Noah-x3 (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree; I think whoever added this had a bit of an axe to grind. As it looks like there's a bit of a consensus developing for removal, I'm just going to be bold and do it. — Czello 06:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the article was overdoing it a little, I think some of the information was worth keeping, especially given coverage like this and this. While I appreciate that Noah-x3 might not like the Guardian, it is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. I've re-added one of the removed paragraphs, but removed the last sentence and the sub-heading. Sam Walton (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not that Noah-x3 does not like the Guardian. He has a fair point. All newspapers have their biases, the Guardian being left-leaning, the Express being right leaning. This needs to be taken into account regardless of the reliability of the source as the Guardian will always attack the right or what it perceives to be on the right; the Express the left. That's why fact needs to be separated from opinion no matter what the RS is. At the moment it is all opinion as the news channel has not launched yet. I agree this article is very speculative and void of fact. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not as speculative as the media itself TheeFactChecker (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)