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 - XIII - 12-03-2023

(12-03-2023, 02:49 AM)Division2023 Wrote:  I can see Channel 4 making a bid for Premier League highlights with Lineker on board when the rights is next up for grabs.

I suspect it's too expensive for them to bid for.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - TMD_24 - 12-03-2023

Laura Kuenssberg seems to be forgetting that Gary Lineker doesn't present MOTD on a Sunday (Baring live games) as she is going around thinking he can come back tonight.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Omnipresent - 12-03-2023

"And now to discuss my interview with a former BBC Executive we go to our panellist, a former BBC Executive."

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Happy2001 - 12-03-2023

From Dan Roan:
At this stage BBC expecting the planned Women's Super League match between Chelsea and Manchester United this afternoon to be on BBC2, but with no pre-match presentation.

"Expecting Match of the Day 2 to follow similar much-reduced format to Match of the Day last night."
https://mobile.twitter.com/danroan/status/1634854472840269825 

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Humphrey Hacker - 12-03-2023

A couple of points:

1. I don't normally watch MOTD but I did last night out of curiosity. The "bare bones" version reminded me of the highlights that some streaming services use albeit without commentary etc which I didn't mind.

2. The hysteria over this is ridiculous.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - DavidWhitfield - 12-03-2023

(12-03-2023, 09:42 AM)bilky asko Wrote:  

(12-03-2023, 03:13 AM)DavidWhitfield Wrote:  I have no doubt that this is correct, but I could just as easily say that the vast majority of people who are most ardently sticking up for Lineker are people who agree with his anti-government sentiments.

Look at the users defending Lineker's right to give his opinion on this site over the past few days for example. Do we really believe that these same people would have all rushed to his defence had he been pulled for breaching impartiality rules by SUPPORTING the government's strong views on immigration? Somehow I think not.

It's not a one-way street. Clearly there are biases on both sides here, which, ultimately, is going to be inevitable in any story with a political element.

If he'd supported the policy, he would never have been suspended. If he'd supported the policy, why would he have posted? 

By the time you've imagined the alternative universe where it could happen, you may as well just admit that you're trying to defend the indefensible.

He didn't support the policy so you have no way of knowing that 'he would never have been suspended' if he had. You are assuming that to be the case, which is fine and I can see why you would come to that conclusion, but it doesn't make it a fact.

My post defends neither the government nor the BBC (quite the contrary), I'm merely noting that there are biases at play on both sides of the argument. 

For what it's worth, and reiterating points  I've made previously, it seems to me that this whole situation stems from the BBC's vague and unclear rules on what they expect from their 'stars', and the inconsistent nature of the enforcement of these rules. I've seen many examples of comments made by other famous BBC faces - especially Alan Sugar - on Twitter which are undeniably political in nature - one in which Sugar out-and-out implores people not to vote for Jeremy Corbyn back in 2017 for example - and it's hard for me to understand how Gary's recent comments can be found in breach of the guidelines while previous tweets he had made along the same lines went unchecked and when tweets by others such as Alan Sugar's example above were deemed fine.

In any workplace, if rules are vague, confusing, full of loopholes, or inconsistently enforced, you're asking for trouble, and the BBC need to be absolutely clear going forward and firm up what is expected of their staff, what is not permissible, and ensure that everyone is on the same page and is treated equally no matter which side of the fence they are on. That would be true impartiality which the BBC claims to strive for.

The ball is firmly in their court - if you'll excuse the unfortunate sports metaphor - to tidy this mess up and ensure this situation can't happen again.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - eyeTV - 12-03-2023

https://twitter.com/LiamHamilton16/status/1634860919225479169?t=asHRrO45chM9bVQET-WDYw&s=19 

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - TIGHazard - 12-03-2023

(12-03-2023, 11:17 AM)DavidWhitfield Wrote:  

(12-03-2023, 09:42 AM)bilky asko Wrote:  If he'd supported the policy, he would never have been suspended. If he'd supported the policy, why would he have posted? 

By the time you've imagined the alternative universe where it could happen, you may as well just admit that you're trying to defend the indefensible.

He didn't support the policy so you have no way of knowing that 'he would never have been suspended' if he had. You are assuming that to be the case, which is fine and I can see why you would come to that conclusion, but it doesn't make it a fact.

My post defends neither the government nor the BBC (quite the contrary), I'm merely noting that there are biases at play on both sides of the argument. 

For what it's worth, and reiterating points  I've made previously, it seems to me that this whole situation stems from the BBC's vague and unclear rules on what they expect from their 'stars', and the inconsistent nature of the enforcement of these rules. I've seen many examples of comments made by other famous BBC faces - especially Alan Sugar - on Twitter which are undeniably political in nature - one in which Sugar out-and-out implores people not to vote for Jeremy Corbyn back in 2017 for example - and it's hard for me to understand how Gary's recent comments can be found in breach of the guidelines while previous tweets he had made along the same lines went unchecked and when tweets by others such as Alan Sugar's example above were deemed fine.

In any workplace, if rules are vague, confusing, full of loopholes, or inconsistently enforced, you're asking for trouble, and the BBC need to be absolutely clear going forward and firm up what is expected of their staff, what is not permissible, and ensure that everyone is on the same page and is treated equally no matter which side of the fence they are on. That would be true impartiality which the BBC claims to strive for.

The ball is firmly in their court - if you'll excuse the unfortunate sports metaphor - to tidy this mess up and ensure this situation can't happen again.

Here is a great hypothetical as it's not about Lineker, Sugar, Clarkson, etc.

Jeremy Vine. We all know he's very pro cyclist. He makes this very clear on his Twitter.

Can Jeremy tweet about cuts to cycle lane funding by government?

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Spencer - 12-03-2023

(12-03-2023, 11:23 AM)eyeTV Wrote:  https://twitter.com/LiamHamilton16/status/1634860919225479169?t=asHRrO45chM9bVQET-WDYw&s=19 

The most talked about programme on the BBC in years gets a big audience, shocker.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - bilky asko - 12-03-2023

(12-03-2023, 11:17 AM)DavidWhitfield Wrote:  

(12-03-2023, 09:42 AM)bilky asko Wrote:  If he'd supported the policy, he would never have been suspended. If he'd supported the policy, why would he have posted? 

By the time you've imagined the alternative universe where it could happen, you may as well just admit that you're trying to defend the indefensible.

He didn't support the policy so you have no way of knowing that 'he would never have been suspended' if he had. You are assuming that to be the case, which is fine and I can see why you would come to that conclusion, but it doesn't make it a fact.

The problem is that your alternative situation isn't a precise opposite - you'd have had no governmental pressure, and a supporter of the policy would have to be particularly brazen to welcome a return to the language of Germany in the 1930s. 

You'd have to pretty naïve to think a suspension would have occurred in those circumstances.

---