[RhysJR]

She does seem to have become pretty obsessed on Twitter recently, whereas Gary Lineker might occasionally post a semi vague comment about a particular policy, mixed in between posts about football and other topics, Carol’s feed seems to be post after post heavily criticising the government, slating ministers by name and actively campaigning to get them out and instructing people how to vote. Her feed seems to contain nothing else..

Clearly breaking the BBC’s social media guidelines.

I hope for her own mental health some of these posts are scheduled in advance as to be so angry about one topic literally 24/7 can’t be good.

I was wondering if it was just a social media persona, as we all know politics equals engagement on Twitter, and she didn’t seem as obsessed even on Have I got News for You, but maybe not.

She’ll be ok, she’ll probably end up on LBC

Funny you should say that, she has already covered James O'Brien's show

www.instagram.com 

Carol Vorderman on Instagram: "@LBC tomorrow Sitting in for @mrja…
3,217 likes, 144 comments - carolvorders on October 24, 2023: "@LBC to…
  Source: www.instagram.com

www.instagram.com 

Carol Vorderman on Instagram: "LBC Thank you for all of your calls and mess…
5,447 likes, 183 comments - carolvorders on October 25, 2023: "LBC Thank …
  Source: www.instagram.com

[interestednovice]

I don't agree personally: absolutely if their job is in news and current affairs, but I don't understand why it is acceptable when the person in question is a DJ or the host of a football show. Is the line now that you must not have publically known political opinions if you want any on-screen job at the BBC? I don't think that's a fair or reasonable expectation for any job. Nothing Vorderman has said crosses the line of acceptability, so why must she lose her job over it? Is there anybody who thinks her online views, not expressed on her show at all, are somehow those of BBC Radio Wales?

The rules are pretty simple: if you are not a prominent person, and are something like a member of a political party but don’t draw attention to it, then that’s fine. Even if it is in the public domain and “known” by the public that you are a member/whatever.

On the other hand, if you appear to be keeping yourself in the public eye heightening your own profile in large part due to your role at the BBC, then using this profile to draw attention to political issues publicly (such as via social media) this crosses a line.

And before anybody says it’s difficult to know where “the line” is; obviously, you have to assume that if in doubt, don’t say it. It’s as simple as that. Nobody is going to go mad just because they can’t put their every thought on Twitter. And if they don’t like it they are free to leave the BBC. If they want to do that there appear to be several other media organisations in the commercial sector which will probably be glad to have them and have much more relaxed policies.

All of this is true regardless of who is in government or who the presenter is. Nobody should be “bigger than the BBC” and think the rules don’t apply to them. Nobody should be given a free pass for breaching the guidelines but being “morally right”. The BBC has to represent everyone and the BBC’s staff have to do everything they can to be relatable to the whole country, so can’t be picking sides in any political disputes. Otherwise, the appeal and impartiality of the BBC itself is damaged.

[interestednovice]

It’s also clear, in this specific case, that the BBC fairly gave a warning which she chose to ignore/defy, so presumably was subsequently fired.

I know some will see this as righteously falling on a sword, but once you have been told what you are posting is in breach of the guidance to continue posting similar content is clearly unacceptable.

The language involved here is that of an “anti-government activist” too. It’s very strong. I don’t know how else you’d describe someone who dedicates a large part of their time to criticising the government in strong terms and attempts to galvanise others to do the same. She has also admitted that it’s a large part of who she is in her statement. That is incompatible with a public role at the BBC, especially as a presenter on a news and current affairs station.

twitter.com 

[mdta]

The government of 2010 is a different government to that of 2023.

If it was just being anti-tory, her actions now, would be the same as back then.

Perhaps it is the deterioration of political discourse and the policies of a particular government that has given her and others, little choice but to speak out.

But its easier to just silence and "punish" those who want to act on their conscience. But she has decided not to keep quiet and keep a show/job.

My issue is with the social media policies, and who put them in place. It is quite obviously a tory trying to protect a tory government from criticism where other media outlets clearly have a bias.

[interestednovice]

It comes across like that, but I don’t think that’s the whole story.

There have been social media policies for years, but they were largely ignored. In the meantime, the population in general and celebrities even more so have started to use social media more and more openly over time. I genuinely think it’s a change in society.

This arguably set the stage for the BBC to get into problems with talent sooner rather than later, whatever government ended up in office.

Tim Davie’s opportunity to “grasp the nettle” was with the Gary Lineker saga, but that was mishandled and turned into a full-on BBC crisis. There won’t be the appetite for that again, so debate about how realistic the rules actually are is probably not going to happen - at least for a while.

[XIII]

I personally think some people need to limit their social media use and Carol is one of them.

[mdta]

I personally think some people need to limit their social media use and Carol is one of them.

Because it will affect her career on the BBC, or because you disagree with her views on the current government's policies?

[JamesWorldNews]

A (perhaps related) observation: Carol also appears to have vacated her fortnightly appearance on ITV’s This Morning. (Every second Friday with Gyles Brandreth).

As mooted by some of you (and Carol herself in her announcement tweet), she alluded to moving onto a new adventure, perhaps a new broadcast outlet.

[strollfan]

The rules are pretty simple: if you are not a prominent person, and are something like a member of a political party but don’t draw attention to it, then that’s fine. Even if it is in the public domain and “known” by the public that you are a member/whatever.

On the other hand, if you appear to be keeping yourself in the public eye heightening your own profile in large part due to your role at the BBC, then using this profile to draw attention to political issues publicly (such as via social media) this crosses a line.

And before anybody says it’s difficult to know where “the line” is; obviously, you have to assume that if in doubt, don’t say it. It’s as simple as that. Nobody is going to go mad just because they can’t put their every thought on Twitter. And if they don’t like it they are free to leave the BBC. If they want to do that there appear to be several other media organisations in the commercial sector which will probably be glad to have them and have much more relaxed policies.

All of this is true regardless of who is in government or who the presenter is. Nobody should be “bigger than the BBC” and think the rules don’t apply to them. Nobody should be given a free pass for breaching the guidelines but being “morally right”. The BBC has to represent everyone and the BBC’s staff have to do everything they can to be relatable to the whole country, so can’t be picking sides in any political disputes. Otherwise, the appeal and impartiality of the BBC itself is damaged.

Do you really think Carol Vorderman is in the public eye "in large part" due to a weekly show on Radio Wales? Again, your points are valid when dealing with individuals who work in news or current affairs - but Vorderman is not that, and her show does not deal with those issues. Why should she be fired for opinions that she holds entirely in her private life and does not attempt to bring to work? I understand the policy entirely, I just don't think the policy is justified and I don't think the BBC should be in the business of controlling their talent's speech when not at work. The vast majority of the country have no interest in being outraged by Vorderman's political views when not at work, so why is the BBC now in the business of appealing to the very extremes?