GB News has made a bold attempt to gain access to public funding, arguing that government broadcasting grants should be opened up to tender rather than automatically flowing to the BBC.
The loss-making news broadcaster, which is backed by hedge fund financier Sir Paul Marshall, laid out its case in a contribution to the government consultation on the BBC’s royal charter. At its heart is a call for “contestable funding”, a mechanism that would allow broadcasters beyond traditional public service operators to apply for taxpayer-funded support.
The BBC’s World Service is the most obvious target. Previously funded entirely by Whitehall, the service now relies primarily on the license fee but still receives grants from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office worth £137m last year. GB News believes it should be allowed to compete for a share of the pot, based on criteria such as quality, audience reach and value for money.
It is a remarkable proposal from an organization that has accumulated losses of over £100m since its founding in 2021, and one that is unlikely to find much favor at Broadcasting House. GB News framed the argument in the language of market competition, claiming that tendering for funding would spur innovation and encourage what it called “diversity of thought and content”.
The broadcaster pointed out a precedent. Between 2019 and 2022, two pilot schemes, the Young Audiences Content Fund and the Audio Content Fund, distributed £48m to a range of broadcasters and independent producers. GB News also drew attention to New Zealand’s NZ On Air model, which distributes public money to different media companies, and suggested a similar framework could increase plurality in the UK broadcasting landscape.
The charter review filing is part of a broader lobbying campaign. In a separate submission to Ofcom, GB News made parallel arguments for contestable funding. It is also pushing for celebrity rights currently only available to the established public broadcasters BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C, which guarantee their channels favorable positioning on television sets, albeit in return for strict commitments to regional production and news output.
It remains to be seen whether the government is interested in diverting public funds to a commercially run, politically divisive broadcaster. But GB News’ intervention ensures that the question of who qualifies as a public service provider and who should pay for it will be at the heart of the charter debate.
