There was a time when Labour politicians claimed to be champions of free expression. There was a time when they warned against the dangers of state interference, government overreach and the concentration of power. Those days appear to be long gone.
According to reports today in the Telegraph, Keir Starmer is considering plans that would effectively force social media companies and video platforms to make content from state-approved broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 more prominent online.
Labour Ministers claim this is necessary to combat “disinformation”. In reality, it represents something far more sinister, a government deciding which news sources the public should see and which voices deserve to be elevated above others.
That should alarm every single person who values a free society.
The Fourth Estate exists for a reason. A free press is not there to serve the government. It is there to scrutinise it, challenge it and, when necessary, expose it. The moment politicians begin deciding which media organisations should receive preferential treatment, they are no longer defending democracy. They are attempting to shape it in their own image.
Who does Starmer think he is?
The Prime Minister is not the editor of the internet. He is not the national referee of truth. He is not the gatekeeper of public opinion. The British people are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves which news sources they trust and which they do not. They do not need politicians, civil servants and regulators nudging them towards government-approved narratives.
The most extraordinary part of this proposal is the apparent assumption that broadcasters such as the BBC should automatically be regarded as uniquely trustworthy. That proposition would be laughable if it were not so serious.
As someone who runs a news organisation, I have personally complained about BBC reporting more times than any other media outlet. The corporation has repeatedly found itself at the centre of accusations of bias, factual errors, selective reporting and editorial failures. This is not merely the view of its critics. Former BBC journalists and employees have themselves spoken publicly about concerns regarding culture, impartiality and political bias within the organisation.
Trust is not something that can be granted by ministerial decree. It has to be earned.
If the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are genuinely the most trusted news sources in Britain, then they should have nothing to fear from open competition. If their journalism is superior, audiences will find it. If it is not, they should not be protected by government intervention.
What Starmer appears unable to grasp is that every attempt to control information only increases public suspicion. People are not fools. They can see what is happening. Across the Western world there has been a growing tendency among political elites to dismiss inconvenient opinions as misinformation and uncomfortable facts as disinformation. Rather than engaging in debate, they increasingly seek to manage it.
The result is a political culture that looks less confident, less democratic and more authoritarian with every passing year.
Many Britons are beginning to ask where all this ends. Today it is proposals to boost approved news sources. Yesterday it was greater regulation of online speech. Tomorrow it will be something else. The ratchet only ever seems to turn in one direction, towards more control, more monitoring and more restrictions.
It is impossible to ignore the wider context. We have lived through a period in which increasing numbers of people feel that expressing controversial opinions can carry serious personal consequences. Whether one agrees with every case or not, there is a growing perception that free speech in Britain is under pressure. That perception will only deepen if politicians begin deciding which news organisations should be artificially promoted to the public.
The lesson of history is straightforward. Governments should never be trusted with the power to determine which viewpoints deserve prominence. Every government believes it is acting in the public interest. Every government convinces itself that its motives are noble. Yet freedom survives precisely because politicians are denied these powers.
The answer to questionable journalism is better journalism. The answer to bad ideas is stronger arguments. The answer to misinformation is open debate, transparency and scrutiny.
It is not state-sponsored amplification of favoured broadcasters.
Keir Starmer may imagine that this proposal will help shape his legacy. In truth, it is likely to achieve the opposite. It will reinforce the growing belief that his instinct whenever faced with disagreement is not to persuade, but to regulate. Not to trust the public, but to manage them. Not to defend freedom, but to place limits around it.
The British people have never responded well to being told what to think. We are a nation that values independence, scepticism and the right to challenge authority. Those instincts helped build one of the oldest and most successful democracies in the world.
They are worth defending now.
Because if the State is allowed to decide which news organisations deserve priority, it is only a matter of time before it starts deciding which opinions deserve to be heard.
That is a road Britain should never go down.
By Claire Bullivant, Editor of the Conservative Post and CEO of the Great British PAC
