Moment GB News star erupts at Labour peer: 'Paying you to sit in House of Lords!'
Findings are available in the analysis below.1 finding
We do not republish articles from Daily Express. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Express reports a GB News exchange between Michelle Dewberry and Lord Foulkes over the killing of Rhiannon Skye Whyte. In its own voice it passes verdict on the peer, calling his reply shameful, his admission shocking and his question bizarre, and it says he left viewers appalled without reporting any viewer reaction. These are minor problems of tone; the facts of the case and both speakers' words are reported.
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“shamefully”
Why this matters
The Express describes Lord Foulkes's reply "But you can't know everything" as made "shamefully", in its own voice.
The impression it gives
That the reply was disgraceful as a matter of fact, not in the presenter's opinion.
The context
The reply was part of an argument. Foulkes had just said he was a backbench peer and not in a position of power. Whether his answer was shameful is a judgement the outlet makes for the reader, not a fact it reports.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“I am a backbench peer; I'm not in a position of power”
“Foulkes' shocking admission”
Why this matters
The Express calls the peer's statement that he did not know the case a "shocking admission".
The impression it gives
That not knowing this case is self-evidently scandalous, a verdict the outlet presents as its own.
The context
The article reports only that he "admitted he had no knowledge" of the case. Whether that is shocking is the presenter's argument, which the outlet adopts in its own voice.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“admitted he had no knowledge of the tragic case”
“In his bizarre response”
Why this matters
The Express labels Foulkes's question about the Tottenham Hotspur captain "bizarre" before the reader sees what he asked.
The impression it gives
That the question made no sense.
The context
The article gives no account of what point Foulkes was making with the question. It reports only Dewberry's angry reading of it, so "bizarre" is the outlet's verdict, not reported fact.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“If you think that the captain of Tottenham Hotspur football club is on the par”
“Lord Foulkes left viewers appalled”
Why this matters
The Express states as fact, in a caption, that viewers were appalled by the peer.
The impression it gives
That there was a wide viewer reaction against Foulkes.
The context
The article quotes no viewer, cites no complaint and reports no reaction from anyone except the presenter herself.
What it gets right
“The 27-year-old asylum hotel worker died in 2024 after being stabbed 23 times with a screwdriver by asylum seeker Deng Chol Majek”
It names the victim and the man who killed her, and it states plainly how she was killed.
“I am a backbench peer; I'm not in a position of power, so you should try and get things right for a change”
It prints the peer's rebuttal in his own words, so the reader hears his side of the exchange.