Disputes over potholes and a widely circulated incident involving a garden gate have sparked a new conflict between Reform UK and local media, following a decision by one of its councils to cease all communication with a journalist associated with these stories.
The Derbyshire county council, controlled by Reform, has faced criticism for establishing what some are calling a “dangerous precedent” by refusing to cooperate with Eddie Bisknell, a journalist for Derbyshire Live, who is funded to report on local democratic processes.
Stephen Reed, the deputy leader of the Reform council, indicated that Bisknell would now have to exert additional effort to fulfill his reporting duties, confirming that the council would not respond to his inquiries.
This situation unfolds in the context of a previous incident where a neighboring Reform-led council had prohibited journalists from a prominent local newspaper. Nottinghamshire county council lifted its ban on the Nottingham Post and its digital platform, Nottinghamshire Live, after facing potential legal repercussions.
The decision in Derbyshire was attributed to what Reform described as a “prolonged period of concerns,” which was ignited by a report concerning potholes. The council had intended to generate favorable media coverage by announcing a significant reduction in potholes, claiming the number had fallen from 12,000 in April to under 700—the lowest count in over a year.
However, a piece by Bisknell, who is part of a cohort of local democracy reporters backed by the BBC, raised questions regarding the validity of the statistics referenced in the council’s announcement.
The restriction on engaging with Bisknell arose as the council took issue with another article discussing a fence panel that had been cemented across a gap between an 81-year-old woman’s garden and a council-owned parking area, a project initiated by the previous Conservative administration.
Reed clarified that the decision to limit interaction with the reporter was made prior to the controversy regarding the fence. He refuted claims of an outright ban, asserting that Bisknell still had the right to cover council matters and attend public meetings, a legal entitlement. However, he confirmed that the council would not respond to his requests for information.
“I want to make it clear: non-engagement does not equate to a ban,” Reed stated. “He remains free to report as he wishes. Our choice as an administration has simply been to refrain from responding to his inquiries.”
Reed expressed a desire for accountability and scrutiny, emphasizing the importance of balanced and fair reporting, while also acknowledging that criticism is part of the process.
Natalie Fahy, editor-in-chief for Reach, which publishes Derbyshire Live, criticized Reform’s action as a straightforward ban. “We have reported on numerous challenging situations across various councils, and while we do not always expect harmonious relationships, we do anticipate open communication,” she remarked.
“To claim this isn’t a ban exemplifies the worst type of double speak, and we should be vigilant against such tactics, especially considering the role of a free press in a functioning democracy,” she added.
Dawn Alford, the chief executive of the Society of Editors, urged the council to reverse its decision. “Refusing to engage with a journalist simply because of discontent with their reporting sets a perilous precedent,” she stated. “A council should not have the discretion to determine which reporters deserve responses. Transparency is an obligation, not a privilege.”
This issue extends beyond the individual journalist or a single story; when a public entity excludes a reporter, it ultimately deprives the public of critical information regarding decisions made in their name and the expenditure of public funds.
Laura Davison, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, called upon the council to “abandon its aloof stance and adhere to the democratic standards that voters and local communities expect from their representatives.”
