No, the BBC is not a ‘trusted’ news service

British broadcasting is struggling. Competing against mammoth American streamers and producing outdated linear television, our traditional media companies are shedding viewers who are increasingly switching to newer, personalised alternatives online.

Although the chips may be down, those with friends in government – namely, our public-service broadcasters (PSB) – can still enjoy unfair protections from the shifting sands of the media market. Recently, the UK government announced plans to give greater ‘prominence’ to what it claims are ‘trusted’ media organisations in an attempt to combat ‘fake news’. Under the recommendations of the ‘Watch This Space’ green paper, published by culture secretary Lisa Nandy, social-media companies and video platforms such as YouTube would be required to boost the visibility of many government-owned broadcasters. In effect, the government wants more control over what you read, watch and listen to.

Our public-service media – the BBC, ITV / STV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C – are already handed a host of perks. New boxes and smart TVs are obliged to not only offer but also prominently display their channels – a privilege not afforded to their non-PSB counterparts. And soon, because they fall into the category of ‘trusted’ news media, their content will be artificially boosted on social-media platforms to increase engagement.

But trusted by whom? Survey after survey has consistently shown that public trust in mainstream media has plummeted to an all-time low.

The BBC regularly comes under fire for its left-wing bias. It is currently being sued by US president Donald Trump after allegedly doctoring a speech to suggest that he had directly encouraged his supporters to storm the US Capitol in January 2021. In 2025, it was forced to pull a documentary about the war in Gaza after it was revealed that it had been narrated by the son of a senior Hamas official. In December, an internal memo exposed deep bias in its coverage of the Middle East and gender politics.

As it stands, the PSB framework has become a permanent subsidy for the mainstream media. The government has picked winners and defended them to the hilt. While there might be a case for state-funded public-service broadcasting (the likes of the BBC’s Shipping Forecast would likely never be produced by a commercial broadcaster), these institutions’ status as trusted channels should not be above scrutiny.

Time and time again, the state seems to reward failure. Consider Channel 4, which commands just 5.9 per cent of UK viewers – a small fish in today’s sea of streaming giants. It is facing a sharp decline in advertising revenue, cutting around 200 jobs and selling its London headquarters. Yet it has just reached an agreement with Whitehall to double its borrowing capacity in the shape of a £150million debt facility.

This is another reason why the new green paper is so troubling. Rather than asking platforms to reward truthful reporting or great journalism directly (or through the marketplace of ideas), it promotes a selective list of institutions decided in advance by the same state that funds and licenses many of them. Independent journalists, new digital outlets and well-established providers alike will not receive a similar leg-up. They will have to fight to win reduced consumer attention when the top of people’s feeds is dominated by the government’s ‘trusted’ providers.

Of course, artificially boosting so-called reliable content veers dangerously close to censorship. Since when is the state better equipped than the average consumer to decide what constitutes the truth?

This all sheds new light on the Sky-ITV merger plans, which will create the UK’s biggest commercial broadcaster, placing their TV channels and on-demand services at the top of our TV screens. ITV wins because it avoids the peril of being a small broadcaster in a world of giants. Sky wins because it will gain the coveted public-service-status protections that ITV currently enjoys for the next eight years.

If Ofcom approves the continuation of this licence, it will prove that it continues to pick winners. Broadcasters should be able to stand on their own commercially because viewers vote with their eyes and the ad revenue follows. Continuing PSB privileges props up select broadcasters to sustain an Ofcom-determined editorial worldview, one that is increasingly divergent from public opinion. And it’s the commercial broadcasters that people actually like who are footing that bill.

Altogether, these recent events paint an alarming picture of the British media landscape. The state is slowly building a system where a shrinking set of institutions has financial backstops, guaranteed audience reach and regulatory privileges. All the while, viewers are increasingly seeking out newer, more modern forms of content.

As so often is the case with media regulations, these policies are framed as a way to take on the so-called Silicon Valley tech giants. In reality, all they do is entrench the privileges of a select few broadcasters, taking powers out of the hands of viewers and into the hands of Whitehall’s bureaucrats.

Sebastian Charleton is head of programmes and partnerships at the Adam Smith Institute.