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 - matthieu1221 - 09-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 05:24 PM)Stooky Bill Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 04:47 PM)Jon Wrote:  He said the “language used was not to dissimilar to that of Nazi germany” which is arguably true, he didn’t say what the UK government is planning to do is the same as Nazi Germany. 

To be accurate he wrote:

"language not dissimilar to that used in Germany in the 30s"

Despite what some would have you believe he didn't mention the word Nazi

You are right that it doesn't mean he was saying they'd do the same, just that the language was the same as used then.

Very telling how this has mischaracterised by parts of the press, leading to even a few posters here into making misleading claims about the topic.

More worryingly are the implications for the News Department. If someone from Sports who arguably given that he has 0 role in news and current affairs has come under fire for giving his opinion (which arguably is based on facts), what leeway will the news department have in the future for making this sort of analysis?

Impartiality isn't giving one side 5 minutes to blurt out whatever they want and then giving 5 minutes to the opposite party, it's about being able to call a spade a spade. Granted, the entire 'language not being too dissimilar to that used in Germany in the 30s' isn't the actual story on BBC News at the moment, but it doesn't give me much hope that they'd be allowed to report something like this in the future. If some hypothetical future government minister paraphrases (whilst keeping a vague semblance of ambiguity) from say Mein Kampf in the future, would the news department even be able to report it and make the link to it without coming under fire for so-called lack of impartiality?

Would a Murrow-esque report be regarded as biased?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMgoi9pBRwg 

---

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

Right, and so Gary will be back this weekend as many of us already knew - presenting the popular sport show on UK TV.

Yay, am super happy.

---

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

This latest culture war story is exactly why culture wars content has been so damaging and more surprising was the BBC leading with it. You'd expect GB News to lead with this non-story, but the editorial decision to lead with Lineker's comment and not the actual policy the government are going through is concerning.

---

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

(09-03-2023, 07:27 PM)Newsroom Wrote:  Right, and so Gary will be back this weekend as many of us already knew - presenting the popular sport show on UK TV.

Yay, am super happy.

I bet he’ll make reference to the controversy but then turn it round to make it sound like he’s talking about football in his opening line on MOTD on Saturday

---

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

I'm surprised this thread is here, its so political.. but here the wider context. There is a large number of people not happy at current policy in place, and completely disagree with Gary Lineker. Ignoring this fact is what causing half the trouble. BBC has to give everyone a voice even the people YOU don't like.

However, Gary isn't` in the news department, he is just a presenter, he can say what he likes.

---

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

For me the more interesting aspect to this is of the employment law side. 

If the BBC say that everyone who does any work for them in any capacity, take any license fee money, has to be impartial in their work and personal life outside the corporation, that would be unprecedented and possibly illegal. In no other field would a freelance (eg) project manager agree that for every other client they work for, Company A's rules must be followed. It would be ludicrous. Are we really saying that because Nigel Farage gets paid an appearance fee to talk about Brexit for 4 minutes on BBC News, that he should be totally impartial in his newspaper columns? What about when a News presenter appears on Strictly or a presents HIGNFY? Should they be absolute in their impartiality? 

The situation now feels very vague and Linekar has identified this and believes what he writes in a personal capacity on a social media channel which has nothing to do with the BBC should be allowed. FWIW I agree with him.

---

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

I think we already know the answers to those questions. Effectively, they are:

1) News presenters - yes, on all matters publicly. Obviously their family and friends may know their private views. Tweeting about them isn’t allowed unless it’s something very innocuous, even then it’s tread carefully!

2) Contributors, et al - no, especially if brought on to present a particular view (i.e. that of pro-Brexit, or anti-Brexit individuals; left or right wing politicians, etc). The BBC has an overall duty to “balance” the views of contributors to one extreme or the other, usually with an “opposing” person during the same discussion.

3) Prominent “BBC faces” - yes, much the same as news presenters. Their own public image and “personal brand” is inextricably linked with the BBC’s for as long as they work for it. As such, news presenter-style rules apply.

Further to this, despite the rules themselves being very strict, no action seems to be taken if presenters merely go “close to the line” but don’t cross it, and even if something happens where they ought not to have said something it seems like they generally get away with a warning, especially if they retract it or delete a tweet. Presumably there is some kind of “three strikes and you’re disciplined” policy. On the other hand, perceived breaches of impartiality on air are treated far more seriously. Martine Croxall’s indiscreet comments about Boris Johnson, which I personally took as a joke (for example), resulted in a period of suspension.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - all new phil - 09-03-2023

(09-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Kojak Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 04:07 PM)all new phil Wrote:  It is completely about what he said. He compared the government’s language to that of a regime that put millions into concentration camps in what is widely accepted to have been the darkest moment in modern history. It is a disgusting thing to say.

Of course you’d be the one to defend the government over this. It’s all confected, anyway. Does anyone think the government really gives a flying monkey’s about what he said? Of course not. They love it. It’s a very convenient distraction from its very slow but very visible collapse.

I’m sorry but what is this supposed to mean? 

Where did I defend the government? What they are doing is horrendous. That doesn’t excuse what Lineker said though.

---

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

(09-03-2023, 10:47 PM)all new phil Wrote:  

(09-03-2023, 05:02 PM)Kojak Wrote:  Of course you’d be the one to defend the government over this. It’s all confected, anyway. Does anyone think the government really gives a flying monkey’s about what he said? Of course not. They love it. It’s a very convenient distraction from its very slow but very visible collapse.

I’m sorry but what is this supposed to mean? 

Where did I defend the government? What they are doing is horrendous. That doesn’t excuse what Lineker said though.

That’s how it came across, Phil. The way you were pearl clutching about what he said seemed like you had more of a problem with that than what the government are doing. If that isn’t the case - which seems so - then I apologise.

---

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

(09-03-2023, 10:24 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  I think we already know the answers to those questions. Effectively, they are:

1) News presenters - yes, on all matters publicly. Obviously their family and friends may know their private views. Tweeting about them isn’t allowed unless it’s something very innocuous, even then it’s tread carefully!

2) Contributors, et al - no, especially if brought on to present a particular view (i.e. that of pro-Brexit, or anti-Brexit individuals; left or right wing politicians, etc). The BBC has an overall duty to “balance” the views of contributors to one extreme or the other, usually with an “opposing” person during the same discussion.

3) Prominent “BBC faces” - yes, much the same as news presenters. Their own public image and “personal brand” is inextricably linked with the BBC’s for as long as they work for it. As such, news presenter-style rules apply.

Further to this, despite the rules themselves being very strict, no action seems to be taken if presenters merely go “close to the line” but don’t cross it, and even if something happens where they ought not to have said something it seems like they generally get away with a warning, especially if they retract it or delete a tweet. Presumably there is some kind of “three strikes and you’re disciplined” policy. On the other hand, perceived breaches of impartiality on air are treated far more seriously. Martine Croxall’s indiscreet comments about Boris Johnson, which I personally took as a joke (for example), resulted in a period of suspension.

Number 3. Even if they're freelance like Leneker is? What if another of their clients insist on something which he would then have to follow while working for the BBC, which may be incompatible with the BBC editorial guidelines? Because that's exactly what the BBC is asking of Lineker - "Because you take licence fee money, everything you do in your personal life and work you do for other clients must comply with our own rules". As I said, this is unprecedented to my knowledge and is unworkable as a freelancer.

Social media, of course, complicates this whole area massively due to the private platforms celebrities now have.

---