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 - Brekkie - 13-12-2023

Those guidelines were not in place when the comments were first made.

It is depressing that we're in a position where talking about protecting the basic human rights of vulnerable people is seen as "political" and even more depressing people are seeing censoring public service broadcasters so they are unable to criticise the government of the day is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in a functioning democracy. That the leading candidate for BBC Chairman seems to want to double down on that too is very concerning.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - interestednovice - 13-12-2023

If this was a panorama investigation being frustrated, or BBC News line of enquiry blocked by government interference then I’d agree with you. But it’s not BBC reporting, it’s the personal social media of a prominent BBC face. The details of what they said aren’t really the issue: it’s the fact they criticised the government when they are supposed to stay impartial (as, in effect, an extension of the BBC’s own impartiality). This ensures that the BBC’s news division can stay genuinely impartial and not be accused of having an axe to grind when a really contentious issue does come up in the future. It’s about reputational image for the organisation itself.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Brekkie - 13-12-2023

(13-12-2023, 09:33 PM)interestednovice Wrote:  If this was a panorama investigation being frustrated, or BBC News line of enquiry blocked by government interference then I’d agree with you. But it’s not BBC reporting, it’s the personal social media of a prominent BBC face. The details of what they said aren’t really the issue: it’s the fact they criticised the government when they are supposed to stay impartial (as, in effect, an extension of the BBC’s own impartiality). This ensures that the BBC’s news division can stay genuinely impartial and not be accused of having an axe to grind when a really contentious issue does come up in the future. It’s about reputational image for the organisation itself.

As you say it's his personal social media - he is not saying this on Match of the Day.

And he does not work for the BBC News division.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Steve in Pudsey - 13-12-2023

(13-12-2023, 09:02 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  There's no getting around the respect section and the requirements not to bring the BBC into disrepute.

If signing an open letter calling for assylum seekers to be treated in a humanitarian way in accordance with international law (and responding to ill-informed criticism) brings the BBC into disrepute, we are pretty much screwed as a society.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Mort - 13-12-2023

(13-12-2023, 09:55 PM)Brekkie Wrote:  As you say it's his personal social media - he is not saying this on Match of the Day.

And he does not work for the BBC News division.

Lineker is however the lead presenter of a defined "flagship programme", so the social media guideline rules apply to him and his co-presenters. These were specifically revised following his first run-in with the big cheeses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/individual-use-of-social-media  says:

Quote:2. Who this guidance applies to
Everyone who works for the BBC should ensure their activity on social media platforms does not compromise the perception of or undermine the impartiality and reputation of the BBC, nor their own professional impartiality or reputation and/or otherwise undermine trust in the BBC.

a) Individuals working in news and current affairs (across all divisions) and factual journalism production, along with all senior leaders have a particular responsibility to uphold the BBC’s impartiality through their actions on social media and so must abide by specific rules set out in this guidance. Factual journalism includes returning strands which cover topical issues. Some individual documentaries may also qualify as factual journalism.

b) Those presenting Flagship Programmes on the BBC carry a particular responsibility to help to balance commitments to both freedom of expression and impartiality, because of their profile on the BBC. This responsibility extends to their use of social media, both for professional and for personal use, during the periods when these Flagship Programmes are on air, and for a two-week window before and after the series. BBC Flagship Programmes are listed here. This list will be reviewed annually.

Quote:4. B) Flagship Programme Presenters
Those presenting Flagship Programmes carry a particular responsibility to help balance commitments to both freedom of expression and impartiality. You are free to express opinions about the issues that matter to you. This includes issues that may be the subject of public and political debate. However, any commentary must be within the boundaries below.

The following list provides guidance on how specific rules and expectations on impartiality will be interpreted for these individuals:


1. Don't endorse or attack a political party (including parties in government or opposition).
2. Don't criticise the character of individual politicians in the UK.
3. Don't comment on any issue that is a matter of political debate during the election period for UK general elections and for referendums in any part of the UK.
4. Don't take up an official role in campaigning groups or become involved in fundraising for campaigning. (Some charitable positions may be exempt from this. This will be agreed on a case by case basis after referral to line management, and exemption will depend on the nature of the role.)

It seems they've boxed themselves into a corner on this, and/or he's looking for an excuse to quiet quit, or he just wants to make a point that he cannot be controlled. The timing couldn't be better either. I expect more Christmas holiday walkouts from the MOTD presenters, we could be in for another atmos-only goals compilation which is fine by me!

I personally think it's a BIG stretch to say he's breached the social media guidelines on this occasion. The Tory press will be gunning for some BBC controversy in the silly season though.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Former Member 237 - 13-12-2023

(13-12-2023, 10:22 PM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote:  If signing an open letter calling for assylum seekers to be treated in a humanitarian way in accordance with international law (and responding to ill-informed criticism) brings the BBC into disrepute, we are pretty much screwed as a society.

This single thing is not the issue. He has said and done a whole lot more so I don’t think it’s particularly useful to try use this example….

As for the previous walk out, I must say this did not go down well given that not everyone has the advantage of being able to just walk out of their job every time their employer doesn’t agree with them.


The average member of the public is not going to be able to tell you about business divisions within the BBC. It’s just one big BBC.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - RhysJR - 13-12-2023

(13-12-2023, 10:22 PM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote:  If signing an open letter calling for assylum seekers to be treated in a humanitarian way in accordance with international law (and responding to ill-informed criticism) brings the BBC into disrepute, we are pretty much screwed as a society.

It is worth noting that is not what Dr Shah thinks would have breached the guidelines, rather Lineker's tweets about/towards Grant Shapps and Lee Anderson.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Brekkie - 13-12-2023

People should be free to point out idiots are idiots though.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Former Member 237 - 13-12-2023

(13-12-2023, 10:34 PM)Brekkie Wrote:  People should be free to point out idiots are idiots though.

If that was the case no broadcaster would be able to function impartially.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Stockland Hillman - 13-12-2023

(13-12-2023, 10:22 PM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote:  If signing an open letter calling for assylum seekers to be treated in a humanitarian way in accordance with international law (and responding to ill-informed criticism) brings the BBC into disrepute, we are pretty much screwed as a society.

That's straightforward misinformation. Taking a small part of an issue, ignoring the main factual and contextual element and then adding a dose of emotive language. That's what we're screwed as a society - the inability to discuss complex and nuanced issues without taking polarised and emotive sides.

Lineker targeted named individuals in his tweets, in apparent breach of the obligation not to, thats the concern.

The test of an argument is to swap the roles and subjects. Say a Labour gov moved to enact gender self ID at all levals and a high profile BBC presenter..say Zoe Ball signed a letter with JK Rowling expressing concern at the loss of human rights for "biological woman" (she of course wouldn't); the issue had been subject to months of debate and the legislation in Parliament that week. It had been picked up and retweeted by every TERF campaign group, Andrew Tate and Piers Morgan

Would it still be appropriate for the BBC presenter to get involved in such a debate that way?

Broadcasting is a privileged position, particularly one funded by public taxation not dependent on ability to pay. There are rules for a reason.

---