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 - eyeTV - 09-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 01:12 PM)Kojak Wrote:  Is he still exclusively with the BBC? If so, I wonder if he is perhaps trying to get fired? Maybe he has been offered a more lucrative deal elsewhere.

Well of course he has an ITV gameshow and 'Sitting On A Fortune' is due back this Spring. But don't think ITV will be under pressure to cancel that show.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Happy2001 - 09-03-2023

The Sun says no action will be taken:
https://mobile.twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1633795360664453124 

---

RE: The Sport Thread - For stuff not worthy of a thread of its own - matthieu1221 - 09-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 11:22 AM)thomalex Wrote:  

(08-03-2023, 08:44 PM)Brekkie Wrote:  Mods could probably do with splitting this thread as  it's news coverage really.  Worth noting his contract has been renewed after previous controversies.  The real issue here is the BBC focusing on the wrong aspect - Lineker is only the story in the minds of the right wing who wish to attack the BBC.

It's ridiculous we're in a situation now where somebody suggesting that language associated with Nazism is a bad thing leads to calls for them to be fired.    Impartiality means freedom to criticise a government, as does the most basic principles of human rights.  Government staff in all public service broadcasters should be free to express their own opinion, including those at the BBC.

But that's not the case. There are guidelines for BBC staff to be impartial on current politics and Gary Lineker as a recipient of licence fee money is required to uphold that. There are other broadcasters available if he wants freedom to express his own opinions.

I listened to the Media Show podcast on this and they made the point that If Lineker had been more nuanced and said something like "I support the refugees and refugees should be treated more humanely", there likely wound't have been an issue. It's the direct point about a government minister linking them to Nazi Germany where the issue is. Agree or disagree with the statement it was political and deliberately controversial. And you simply can't do that and take a wage from the BBC.

(Responding to the first point)

The wider question is why non-News staff need to be covered by those impartiality rules. It's not like he's going to be hosting a debate on the politics of the day anytime soon. Same with anyone else working in Sports or anything else non-News related.

The license fee part arguably is irrelevant. The BBC isn't the civil service. It's not like it in itself is working on implementing government policies in a way that civil servants should refrain from openly criticizing it.

---

Newshound47 - Newshound47 - 09-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 01:27 PM)matthieu1221 Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 11:22 AM)thomalex Wrote:  But that's not the case. There are guidelines for BBC staff to be impartial on current politics and Gary Lineker as a recipient of licence fee money is required to uphold that. There are other broadcasters available if he wants freedom to express his own opinions.

I listened to the Media Show podcast on this and they made the point that If Lineker had been more nuanced and said something like "I support the refugees and refugees should be treated more humanely", there likely wound't have been an issue. It's the direct point about a government minister linking them to Nazi Germany where the issue is. Agree or disagree with the statement it was political and deliberately controversial. And you simply can't do that and take a wage from the BBC.

(Responding to the first point)

The wider question is why non-News staff need to be covered by those impartiality rules. It's not like he's going to be hosting a debate on the politics of the day anytime soon. Same with anyone else working in Sports or anything else non-News related.

The license fee part arguably is irrelevant. The BBC isn't the civil service. It's not like it in itself is working on implementing government policies in a way that civil servants should refrain from openly criticizing it.

At the lower levels of the Civil Service you allowed to be openly political (Political Party membership for example) just not allowed to criticise stuff that might come under your work.

---

RE: Newshound47 - matthieu1221 - 09-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 01:30 PM)Newshound47 Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 01:27 PM)matthieu1221 Wrote:  (Responding to the first point)

The wider question is why non-News staff need to be covered by those impartiality rules. It's not like he's going to be hosting a debate on the politics of the day anytime soon. Same with anyone else working in Sports or anything else non-News related.

The license fee part arguably is irrelevant. The BBC isn't the civil service. It's not like it in itself is working on implementing government policies in a way that civil servants should refrain from openly criticizing it.

At the lower levels of the Civil Service you allowed to be openly political (Political Party membership for example) just not allowed to criticise stuff that might come under your work.

You managed to word it better than I did!

The same should apply at the BBC. If you're not involved with covering the news and current affairs, you shouldn't need to be covered by the impartiality rules.

If you're in Sports, arguably you shouldn't break impartiality rules there neither with regards to sports news.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Larry the Loafer - 09-03-2023

I think this controversy is less about what Gary has said and more about the perceived hypocrisy of the BBC. People like Alan Sugar have sent out "biased" tweets in the past, and faced no action, despite also being a presenter on the BBC. You also have a lot of accusations about the likes of Fiona Bruce and Laura Kuennesburg who, despite not being quite as direct as Lineker, have raised more than a few eyebrows over their conduct.

And even if we focus solely on Gary, the BBC didn't bat an eyelid over his words regarding Qatar during the World Cup coverage.

Even if I were to remove my own political beliefs from this entire discussion, the inconsistentcy of the BBC's principals on impartiality is frankly embarrassing. I often turn a blind eye to the discussion of the BBC's supposed bias ("how can both the left and right think it's biased") but now I'm really starting to lose faith.

---

RE: The Sport Thread - For stuff not worthy of a thread of its own - thePineapple - 09-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 01:27 PM)matthieu1221 Wrote:  The wider question is why non-News staff need to be covered by those impartiality rules. It's not like he's going to be hosting a debate on the politics of the day anytime soon. Same with anyone else working in Sports or anything else non-News related.

The license fee part arguably is irrelevant. The BBC isn't the civil service. It's not like it in itself is working on implementing government policies in a way that civil servants should refrain from openly criticizing it.

I agree. Alastair Campbell (although obviously very biased) made a good point that his tweet would have had a minute effect on people's trust in the BBC. It may do now, because it's been their top story since last night.

Compared to much larger controversies, such as Richard Sharp's involvement with Johnson and Sunak, it seems like an issue that's been blown way out of proportion. Last night's NaT could have had really interesting analysis about the bill itself and the political arguments, but they sacrificed a lot of that for the Lineker story. That seems to me like the wrong editorial decision.

(Perhaps this is getting too political, but it does raise some questions about how the Beeb reports and priorities certain stories)

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Matrix - 09-03-2023

For what it's worth, this whole thing strikes me as confected rage. The Daily Mail reporting of 'anger' is about as wide of the mark as you can get, if you stick with the bind of 'trust worthy reporting'. I mean, isn't this the same organisation that had Andrew Neil literally leading aspects of political coverage, whilst wearing an Adam Smith Institute tie? 

Linekar is a sports and entertainment presenter who, as I understand it, isn't on an exclusive BBC contract, nor likely to be hosting Newsnight any time soon. 

I think it does the public an enormous disservice to assume that they can't differentiate between the personal (and, quite frankly, legitimate) views of a personality and then the impartiality that comes with BBC News. Presentational perspective, though, is important. I think part of the move towards more 'process' aspects in reporting (i.e. reporters at their desks and the monitors in the newsroom) is in part to counter the idea of bias (such as it is) and to explain how impartiality actually works. 

Meanwhile, over on GBeebies, they've got whichever latest cabinet flunky to spout party lines and none of this...

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Kojak - 09-03-2023

Again, although he isn't exclusive, I do wonder if the Beeb are just using this as an excuse to get rid of him. He's not exactly cheap, after all.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Brekkie - 09-03-2023

What was really odd is the BBC let it dominate their news coverage yesterday and led with it on the Six and Ten, but then first thing this morning there was no sight of the story on the headlines on the app.

---