CCN adds: “To avoid getting played, do your homework: Research their previous public statements, ask independent experts where the truth lies, and then don’t be afraid to push back.”
But rarely do broadcasters or publications announce the provenance of contributors or question who funds them.
Factual
For example, fossil fuel funded think tanks – such as those based in Tufton Street – are rarely challenged on the veracity of their claims.
And, indeed, if caught in a lie in a published commentary, they have their backs covered by The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the dominant but unvalidated regulatory body for UK print journalism.
Its panel is composed of senior editors from the very outlets it is tasked with policing. Since its inception in 2014, IPSO has never issued fines, launched formal standards investigations, or imposed significant sanctions. This is despite of repeated breaches of its Editors’ Code. In 2024, the Press Recognition Panel formally censured IPSO for being ineffectual.
Brian Cathcart of Byline Times has observed that IPSO functions as “a fig leaf… designed, not to curb unethical journalistic conduct, but to enable it.”
Emily Townsend, a former Murdoch press executive, briefly lifted this fig leaf when she resigned in protest at the company’s relentless “misinformation campaign” which she said diverted public attention from climate change and distorted factual reporting.
Standards
Philosopher Jennifer Saul of the University of Waterloo warns that the repetition of such narratives enables “ideas that would never have garnered mainstream attention in the past [to] come to seem like normal parts of public discourse.”
Broadcast regulation reflects similar failings. Ofcom, under the leadership of Lord Grade, has openly aligned itself with “anti-woke” rhetoric.
It has failed to rein in channels like GB News which sidestep accountability by shifting non-compliant content to unregulated online platforms. GB News has been described by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue as a “central hub” for climate denial.
An investigation by producer Ben de Pear and journalist Ramita Navai revealed that the BBC pulled their documentary Gaza: Doctors Under Attack after its editorial standards committee – echoing the Israeli government’s stance – dismissed the UN as an unreliable source.
The BBC’s editorial deference to right-wing press narratives is also evident in its alignment with the right wing press. Former BBC economics editor Robert Peston has admitted that the broadcaster “more often than not” follows the lead of papers like the Daily Mail and The Telegraph.
Shortcomings
In nailing its colours to those mastheads, the corporation cynically blurs what is “in the public interest” and what is merely of interest to the public.
This chasing of ‘clicks’ over substance was clear when the BBC declined to provide live coverage of the Restore Nature Now march in June 2024 – the largest environmental protest in UK history.
Internal sources say producers required evidence of “disruption or disorder” to justify broadcast attention, a threshold the peaceful demonstration did not meet.
On the same day, however, the BBC aired a Newswatch segment debating whether Euro 2024 football matches should interrupt news bulletins.
Under political pressure, the BBC has also reneged on its acceptance of the findings of the Jones Report of 2011 which highlighted shortcomings.
Coverage
“These include”, the Jones Report had found, “a lack of contact and cooperation between science programme makers across BBC divisions; an over-reliance on a narrow range of external information sources; and, crucially, concern about the appropriate application of editorial guidelines on ‘due impartiality’ in science coverage.”
In short, Jones argued some issues – such as settled climate science – do not have “two sides” and that reporting on activism is not in itself activism, nor is it bias.
As CNN reasons, “covering a protest no more makes a journalist an activist than covering a football match makes them an athlete”. In fact, CCN’s own guidance advises climate reporters to “treat activists like newsmakers.”
In contrast to the BBC, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) has embraced an approach more in line with CCN’s ethos.
Responding to audience demand for stronger coverage, NRK adopted a non-neutral stance on climate change reporting. The results speak for themselves: climate stories now frequently outperform other newsroom content.
Alignment
As Reuters’ Katherine Dunn observed: “In 2023, stories produced by the organisation’s climate teams outperformed the average story on the website in 11 months out of 12, often dramatically.
“The experience of NRK seems to undercut a pervasive myth among many news organisations: that audiences simply aren’t interested in climate change journalism.”
NRK’s success signals a broader paradigm shift. If the news cannot be trusted, it must change to survive – and the survival of the media, democracy, and a livable planet are inextricably intertwined.
Around the world, a dynamic “movement-media” ecosystem is taking shape, bringing together independent newsrooms, climate justice advocates, anti-racist platforms, and youth-led media justice projects.
Examples include The Voice, Black Ballad, the Fossil Ad Ban campaign, and Media Literacy Now. More often than not, such grass roots voices operate in isolation, without the strategic alignment needed to drive systemic change.
Monopoly
The Media Revolution initiative is not intended as a ‘new’ organisation, but as connective infrastructure – designed to foster collaboration, bridge disparate efforts, and amplify voices historically excluded from mainstream discourse.
In line with IMPRESS standards and in partnership with bodies such as the Independent Media Association, it advances four interlocking strategies:
- Resisting – Systematically confronting harmful narratives and holding the media to account.
- Radicalising – Shifting public consciousness through grassroots mobilisation and participatory storytelling.
- Replacement – Building and sustaining independent, community-driven media platforms.
- Regulation – Demanding robust oversight mechanisms, free from political and corporate interference.
“We are all paying the price for a dysfunctional, corrupted established media,” states Brian Cathcart. “Addressing this crisis requires not only improving journalistic practice but dismantling the structural capture of information flows.
“Breaking the billionaire monopoly over public discourse is essential not simply for media integrity, but for the survival of democratic governance itself.”
This Author
Tom Hardy FRSA has over 40 years of experience in education, serving as literary editor for the International Journal of Art and Design Education, as columnist for the Times Educational Supplement, and author/editor of several academic works on educational practice. He has worked as an education consultant for the Prince’s Teaching Institute and subject lead for the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency reporting to the Department for Education. He now works with Media Revolution.
Media Revolution launched on 28 July, with a 100-day countdown to Media Liberation Day on 5 November 2025. It is a global call to reclaim our media and re-establish it as a fourth pillar of democracy. To get involved contact [email protected].