Journalist alleges that a government-funded watchdog is impeding media ad sales under the guise of combating disinformation

In a shocking revelation, the editor of UK media website UnHerd, Freddie Sayers, has accused a government-funded watchdog of impeding media ad sales under the guise of combating disinformation. Sayers made these claims during a parliamentary hearing on the future of news, where he discussed how his website was deprived of advertising revenue due to the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) labeling its opinion pieces as “disinformation.” This revelation raises concerns about censorship and the suppression of free speech.

UnHerd, founded in 2017 with a mission to promote “slow news,” has published a diverse range of authors and scientists with different political viewpoints. However, the GDI’s categorization of UnHerd as an outlet associated with “anti-trans” and “anti-LGBT” narratives has hindered its ability to secure advertising. Despite the fact that being “gender critical” is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, the GDI deemed UnHerd’s content as harmful and damaging to brands.

The GDI, founded in 2018, aims to disrupt the business model of disinformation by ensuring that advertisers’ money does not support high-risk websites. It receives funding from the UK government, the European Union, and the governments of Germany and the United States. Sayers uncovered the funding details through a written question submitted by Conservative MP Philip Davies, which revealed that £2.6 million was given to the GDI until last year.

Sayers argues that the GDI’s definition of disinformation has expanded to include “an adversarial narrative.” This means that even factually accurate information that challenges the official narrative, such as scientists raising concerns about the COVID-19 response or vaccine damage, can lead to a publisher being placed on the GDI list and losing advertising revenue. The GDI’s broadening definition has raised questions about its role in controlling the media conversation and suppressing dissenting voices.

Sayers believes that the GDI is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the suppression of free speech and media plurality. He argues that organizations like the GDI, with their subjective judgments and arbitrary ratings, are lending legitimacy to a conspiratorial worldview in which governments and corporations collude to censor political expression. Sayers warns that unless action is taken to stop them, they will continue to sow paranoia and distrust, leading to an increasingly radicalized and divided society.

The revelations about the GDI’s influence on media ad sales have sparked concerns about the power of watchdogs in shaping the media landscape. It raises questions about who gets to decide what is considered disinformation and how this classification can impact the financial viability of media outlets. The case of UnHerd serves as a cautionary tale about the potential dangers of allowing self-appointed organizations to control the flow of information and dictate what is acceptable discourse.

As the debate around disinformation and media ethics continues, it is crucial to ensure that freedom of expression and diverse viewpoints are protected. Balancing the need to combat genuine disinformation with safeguarding free speech is a delicate task that requires transparency, accountability, and a commitment to upholding democratic values. The case of UnHerd highlights the importance of vigilance in preserving a truly independent and pluralistic media landscape.