Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Printable Version

+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: News and Sport Presentation (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy (/showthread.php?tid=381)

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Kojak - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 03:55 PM)Kim Wexler’s Ponytail Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 03:36 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  He was publisher, not editor of Spectator, which itself is a magazine regulated by IPSO. Therefore nothing like the Lineker situation

It's widely accepted that Journalists write and work for other news organisations of similar standing - so and independently regulated news magazine wouldn't raise any issues, same working for another Ofcom regulated broadcaster

It seems like we're holding a BBC sports presenter to a higher standard than actual BBC journalists here. The political journalist could express his non impartial opinions on twitter because he also wrote for another news organisation but the Match of the Day presenter absolutely can't express a non-impartial opinion on twitter because.....????

Because it's not the correct opinion, that's why.

---

(11-03-2023, 03:52 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  This what I mean when I say there's a highly manipulated agenda here.

Labour commentator  Dan Hodges is bang on here

The abolition of the BBC Singers is the latest thing to be the equivalent of the Nazis. Come on. Everyone needs to get a serious grip. This is getting ridiculous now. <a href="https://t.co/b97016vJ3J">https://t.co/b97016vJ3J</a></p>&mdash; (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges)

I agree that Campbell's comment is probably an overreaction - but Dan Hodges is about as much of a Labour supporter as Nigel Farage.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Steve in Pudsey - 11-03-2023

Ian Dennis on 5 Live pointing out that he's a BBC staff member

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Keith - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 03:52 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  This what I mean when I say there's a highly manipulated agenda here.

Labour commentator  Dan Hodges is bang on here
<<snip>>
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1634472511894069249 

It's perhaps worth noting that BBC Breakfast this morning that Alistair Campbell has a podcast, which is produced by Lineker's company. Another factor to bare in mind when listening to him on interviews and/or reading his tweets, in addition to his well known political opinions.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - matthieu1221 - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 03:52 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  This what I mean when I say there's a highly manipulated agenda here.

Labour commentator  Dan Hodges is bang on here

The abolition of the BBC Singers is the latest thing to be the equivalent of the Nazis. Come on. Everyone needs to get a serious grip. This is getting ridiculous now. <a href="https://t.co/b97016vJ3J">https://t.co/b97016vJ3J</a></p>&mdash; (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges)

Barring Campbell's overstretch which arguably has absolutely nothing to do with the BBC/Lineker situation (he's doing his job as a political commentator, whether the analysis is trash or great is anyone's own opinion and irrelevant) , what specifically is the highly manipulated agenda you're talking about?

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - lhx1985 - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 04:00 PM)Keith Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 03:52 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  This what I mean when I say there's a highly manipulated agenda here.

Labour commentator  Dan Hodges is bang on here
<<snip>>
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1634472511894069249 

It's perhaps worth noting that BBC Breakfast this morning that Alistair Campbell has a podcast, which is produced by Lineker's company. Another factor to bare in mind when listening to him on interviews and/or reading his tweets, in addition to his well known political opinions.

And as Campbell pointed out on BBC news earlier, it's also worth noting that both the DG and Chairman are 'compromised' in terms of their own agendas and impartiality, but they do not begin news bulletins by mentioning that.

They're not even able to be impartial with the way in which the journalistic concept of 'full disclosure' is enforced at the moment.

Big problem for trust. Huge!

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - LDN - 11-03-2023

From BBC Editorial Guidelines - Guidance: Individual Use of Social Media: 

Quote:2. Rules and expectations of social media use for all colleagues (employees, contractors and freelancers)

The following rules and expectations apply to all those working for the BBC, for professional (@BBC) and personal social media accounts.

1. Always behave professionally, treating others with respect and courtesy at all times: follow the BBC’s Values.

2. Don’t bring the BBC into disrepute.

3. If your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, don’t express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or ‘controversial subjects’.**

4. Don’t criticise your colleagues in public. Respect the privacy of the workplace and the confidentiality of internal announcements.

** Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code defines political or industrial controversy as political or industrial issues on which politicians, industry and/or the media are in debate.

"4. Don't criticise your colleagues in public." Will Hudson now be 'spoken to' by his bosses, or asked to 'step back' from his presenting role, or told to publicly apologise for his breach of BBC guidelines? 

Notably, on that same web page, there's an entire subsection called "Expressions of Opinion on Social Media****", which begins: 

Quote:Section 2 Rule 3 above requires that you do not express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or ‘controversial subjects' if your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, ie. if you are working in news and current affairs (across all Divisions) and factual journalism production or senior management. Nothing should appear on your personal social media accounts that undermine the perception of the BBC’s integrity or impartiality.

The four asterisks refer to a footnote that states: 

Quote:**** This section applies to those working in news and current affairs (across all Divisions) and factual journalism production or senior management.

That would seem to imply that only those working in those specific areas are forbidden from sharing their opinions on public policy and politically sensitive topics via social media, rather than it being a rule that applies equally to all BBC personalities or staff. 

Further, under Guidance: Social Media - Expressions of Opinion on Social Media, the BBC again details the limitations around political discourse for those specific groups only, rather than applying to all BBC presenters and employees: 

Quote:Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

Nothing should appear on their social media accounts which undermines the integrity or impartiality of the BBC.

They should not:

[list]
[*]state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
[*]express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
[*]advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’
[*]exhort a change in high-profile public policy
[*]speak or write publicly about the BBC without specific, prior approval from the relevant head of department.
[/list]

I'm struggling to see how Gary Lineker, a sports personality and presenter, can be considered an "individual involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues". So why is Lineker being held to account for supposedly breaching these guidelines, when those guidelines that relate to political discussion don't appear to apply to him? 

But there's one remarkable quote I've read so far in the BBC Editorial Guidelines, which seems to nicely capture the absurdity of this situation. In Section 15: Conflicts of Interest - Guidelines, under section 15.3.13, "Public Expressions of Opinion": 

Quote:Where individuals identify themselves as being linked with the BBC, or are programme makers, editorial staff, reporters or presenters primarily associated with the BBC, their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. This includes the use of social media and writing letters to the press. Opinions expressed on social media are put into the public domain, can be shared and are searchable.

The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.

Just read that again: "The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts."

So the BBC's own (surprisingly prescient!) Editorial Guidelines not only foresaw this very situation; they also explicitly acknowledge that a sports presenter expressing views on politics is not a 'high risk' situation in terms of BBC impartiality and potential conflicts of interest. 

And strangely, while other sections on the same page include clear instructions where relevant ("individuals must clear..."; "presenters should normally..."; "advance discussion is essential..."), there's nothing under 15.3.13 to suggest that these types of presenters should not be posting about topics such as politics. If anything, the wording of that section simply acknowledges that sports presenters might post about politics, or a science presenter might comment on the arts, but there's nothing to even hint that they shouldn't be doing so. 

Given that the BBC clearly stated that it believes Lineker's "recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines", I'd be very interested to know which guidelines he was alleged to have breached, because the more I read through the guidelines, the less that claim makes sense.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - matthieu1221 - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 04:03 PM)LDN Wrote:  From BBC Editorial Guidelines - Guidance: Individual Use of Social Media:

[edited out]

Given that the BBC clearly stated that it believes Lineker's "recent social media activity to be a breach of our guidelines", I'd be very interested to know which guidelines he was alleged to have breached, because the more I read through the guidelines, the less that claim makes sense.

The more they make up as they go along with no clue of any overall strategy in how they handle this crisis, the more ridiculous this will look.

Any further and they'll be getting to a similar point as when GBNews claimed that Guto Harri breached their editorial standards without pointing out which of their editorial standards he had breached, because he hadn't breached any of them!

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - oscillon - 11-03-2023

BBC says the row has gone worldwide: Sportsworld on World Service is not on air.

Quote:BBC World Service's sports coverage hit

Earlier, we reported on BBC radio station 5 Live suspending its football coverage.

This has also impacted the BBC World Service English-language radio broadcasting, which has a global audience.

Sportsworld was scheduled for almost four hours - from 14:06 to 18:00 GMT - but it's currently not on air.

Indeed, for 1400 GMT hour they had History Hour instead of Sportsworld. 1500 GMT hour carries The Real Story while 1600 GMT has From Our Own Correspondent.
Apologies about limited sports coverage in the wake of the Lineker raw were at :04:50 out in a 6-minutes long 1500 GMT bulletin.

UPD. Also there was a special announcement before the TOTH: "You're listening to the BBC World Service. Today we are making changes to our normal schedule. In light of events affecting the BBC's coverage of live Premiere League football, we are unable to bring you Sportsworld. Next today it's <The Real Story/From our Own Correspondent/...>."

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - UTVLifer - 11-03-2023

It's incredibly clear nobody had war-gamed for what would happen, with the BBC management once again proving that they are completely and utterly incompetent when it comes to crisis management

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - lhx1985 - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 04:20 PM)UTVLifer Wrote:  It's incredibly clear nobody had war-gamed for what would happen, with the BBC management once again proving that they are completely and utterly incompent when it comes to crisis management

But in a league of their own when it come to causing them.

---