Ofcom ‘stifled criticism’ of coronavirus response
Broadcasting regulator accused of labelling any challenge to official line as ‘misinformation’
OFCOM has been accused of stifling “rational criticism” of the response to Covid-19 by labelling scepticism about Britain’s approach to the pandemic as “misinformation”.
Amid controversy over whether official statistics were overstating the prevalence of coronavirus, the broadcasting regulator described the idea that there was “a lower number of cases in reality than is being reported” as a “common piece of misinformation”.
It also emerged it had warned broadcasters early on in the pandemic that it would prioritise investigations into radio or televised reports featuring advice that “discourages the audience from following official rules and guidance”. It will lead to renewed concerns about the regulator’s approach as the Government seeks a new chairman to “provide proper scrutiny and challenge”.
Last night, Steve Baker, the Conservative MP and former minister, called the watchdog’s approach “dangerous”.
He said: “To label any kind of rational criticism as misinformation is unscientific and a frank rejection of enlightenment values which would catapult us into a new dark age.”
Ofcom has prepared dozens of papers detailing surveys it has carried out relating to Covid-19. They each include a section relating to “misinformation related to Covid-19”. One, drawn up in October 2020, shortly before official statistics were used to justify a second national lockdown, stated: “The most common piece of misinformation respondents came across in the last week (from a select list) is ‘face masks/ coverings offer no protection/or are harmful’… One in five respondents reported coming across claims that ‘the number of deaths linked to Coronavirus is much lower in reality than is being reported’. A similar proportion came across claims about a ‘lower number of cases in reality than being reported’.”
The description of scepticism about masks and official data as “misinformation” appeared to overlook political and scientific debates on the issues. Some government advisers had warned people could be put at risk of infection if face masks were worn incorrectly, or if those using face coverings failed to follow social distancing rules.
Separately, many MPs were critical of the Government’s use of statistics to justify further restrictions. In December,
ONS data – which showed soaring coronavirus cases before the second lockdown – were quietly revised down and suggested cases were largely plateauing.
And formal guidance issued by Ofcom on March 27 2020 warned: “Ofcom is prioritising cases relating to the coronavirus which raise the risk of potential harm to audiences.”
“This could include, for example: inaccurate or materially misleading content in programmes about the virus or public policy on it; health claims about the virus which may encourage the audience to respond in a way that would be harmful to themselves and others; and medical or other advice which may be harmful if followed, or discourages the audience from following official rules and guidance.” Ofcom said it would consider “appropriate regulatory action” for any breaches.
Jon Dobinson, a director of Recovery, which campaigns for an end to restrictions, said: “This is worrying evidence of the extent to which freedom of speech is being curtailed by the state broadcast
‘This is worrying evidence of the extent to which freedom of speech is curtailed by the state broadcast regulator’
regulator. The March 2020 guidance is intimidating and it is concerning that the advice remains in force now. Shockingly, Ofcom is telling broadcasters that they could face losing their licences if they report facts or expert scientific opinions which could suggest that lockdowns and restrictions are excessive. In the week of Nov 4, when there was a major controversy over Sage providing overstated and misleading data to Parliament, Ofcom was presenting and proscribing the reality as ‘misinformation’.”
Mr Baker, deputy chairman of the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: “I find it unbelievable such crass ignorance is present in a regulator on whom we rely for the preservation of an open society.”
An Ofcom spokesman said: “The list of claims that could be considered false or misleading is provided to us by Full Fact and helps us understand how often people encounter these types of claims. The survey is refined as new information comes to light. The starting point of every decision we make on content standards is freedom of expression and our guidance supports broadcasters in providing accurate information.”
The recruitment process for a new Ofcom chairman is currently being rerun. Last month it emerged that Facebook and Google had lobbied against Paul Dacre, the former Daily Mail editor, getting the job.