Having now read the article, I remain deeply disappointed with The Guardian.
For many years, it was regarded as one of the finest newspapers in the world. Its investigative journalism was respected across the political spectrum, and it worked alongside major international publications on stories that held governments, corporations and powerful individuals to account. That reputation was earned through rigorous journalism and a willingness to follow the facts wherever they led.
Sadly, in my view, that reputation has been steadily eroded by the political direction the paper has chosen to take in recent years. Increasingly, it appears less interested in objective journalism and more interested in advancing particular narratives. What makes this article especially remarkable is that it appears to give credence to arguments that would once have been associated with the political right, if not the hard right.
The suggestion that the "white majority" lacks a voice in Britain is extraordinary. The overwhelming majority of Prime Ministers, Cabinet ministers, newspaper editors, media owners, business leaders and senior public figures in modern Britain have come from that very majority. The issue has never been whether people have a voice. The issue is whether some media organisations have chosen to profit from grievance, division and the constant promotion of cultural conflict.
Britain has always been shaped by migration. Long before modern borders, immigration systems and government departments existed, people moved, settled, traded, intermarried and built communities. That is not a matter of opinion. It is the history of these islands. People of every background, race and religion have contributed to making this country what it is today.
What concerns me about GB News is not that it exists. It has every right to broadcast. Free speech includes the right to express opinions that others disagree with. However, free speech does not place anyone beyond criticism. In my opinion, far too much of the channel's output is dedicated to promoting a narrative that Britain is somehow under threat from diversity, immigration and multiculturalism. It presents a version of the country that bears little resemblance to the reality experienced by millions of people every day.
The irony is that the article is framed as a debate about free speech when the real issue is accuracy, balance and responsibility. No one is stopping GB News from broadcasting. The question is whether broadcasters should be held to the same standards as everyone else when they make claims about the state of the nation.
Perhaps the greatest disappointment is seeing The Guardian lend weight to this argument. This was once a newspaper renowned for challenging narratives, not amplifying them. It was respected because it scrutinised power, regardless of where that power came from. Today, many former readers feel that something has changed. People who once subscribed, supported and defended the paper are increasingly walking away. Subscriptions are being cancelled, trust is being lost and readers are seeking their news elsewhere.
For me, that is the real story. Not Michael Grade's comments, nor GB News itself, but the decline of a newspaper that was once regarded as a standard bearer for investigative journalism. The Guardian is, of course, free to publish whatever it chooses. Equally, readers are free to conclude that it no longer represents the values, standards or journalism that made it respected in the first place.
NEW: An anti-free speech “liberal, Islington consensus” is targeting GB News, says departed Ofcom chair, Michael Grade.
Grade, criticised over approach to GB News, said failure to give “the white majority” a voice would damage social integration.
Story:
theguardian.com/media/2026/j…