[LDN]

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

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: 

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: 

**** 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: 

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:


[*]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.

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": 

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.