Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?

[Shaw S Hunter]

ISTM that the real issue here has nothing to do with a vaguely political tweet by a popular sports broadcaster. It's much more about the way in which governments in this country, having won not just initial election but subsequently achieving re-election, start to believe that the BBC should automatically, and without question, act as cheerleaders for that government. It certainly happened in the later years of the regimes of both Thatcher and Blair, and has been plainly evident ever since Johnson became PM. The difference now is that the government has succeeded in getting its own favoured people into very senior positions in the BBC and is using those people to bring pressure on BBC broadcast staff to toe the government line.

It should surely be the case in a functioning democracy that the media generally appraises government actions critically and calls it out when necessary, especially if the opposition is weak and disorganised. Unfortunately the number of media outlets prepared to do just that is slowly but surely dwindling. What concerns me very much is that if the Conservatives get re-elected the BBC will be privatised and any remaining semblance of balanced coverage, however ham-fisted it may be at times, will be eliminated.

 

[DarloRich]

BBC Director General Tim Davie was previously a Conservative Party candidate and Deputy Chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party

It is bent. Despite the long winded nonsense above we all ( even those pendling like mad to not admit the truth) can see what this is.

I don't care what Lineker or anyone else thinks about anything but I do care about institutions we all rely on being corrupted.

 

[WatcherZero]

Braverman, Nadine, Mogg and the others must be ****ting bricks right now. Their attempt to brow beat critical voices and undermine the BBC has backfired massively, BBC Chairmans job is looking very unsafe as a head will have to roll to be seen as reducing the Conservative political influence on the BBC.

 

[Philip]

Would those members (not just the two quoted) who believe that this was the correct decision, also be backing that stance if Lineker had tweeted in support of the government's plans?

You can be sure that the majority of the voices who had been calling for the BBC to do something would have remained quiet on the matter if he had.

Yes because again it contradicts the impartiality. He has been warned a few times before about this so I don't see how he has much of a leg to stand on.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its actually written in the BBC guidelines as an example that Sports presenters can comment on Politics as its a 'low risk' unrelated subject.

 

[Edsmith]

Yes because again it contradicts the impartiality. He has been warned a few times before about this so I don't see how he has much of a leg to stand on.

Exactly this, he's ignored the warnings and deliberately sought to provoke confrontation. If he leaves the BBC he can say whatever he wants.

 

[HST274]

Personally I think this whole situation is a farce. Indeed I think the BBC should be more worried by the comments that Stanley Johnson broke his wife's nose 'only once', as if to excuse him, which I think Fiona Bruce said on Question Time, ignoring the fact of course that he hit his wife 'many times' by her own admission.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Its actually written in the BBC guidelines as an example that Sports presenters can comment on Politics as its a 'low risk' unrelated subject.

And if it had been general, not targeting our current xenophobic leaders, they’d have said nowt. Instead, they took it personally that people called them out and got their helpfully-placed shysters such as the Chairman (who lied about helping Johnson get money) and the Director of News who are all Tories to ruin him.

Lineker said nothing wrong, his comparisons are fair, and his tweets and behaviour we need more of and not less in this country. We need less Tories. That’s the problem.

 

[Falcon1200]

He's a contractor and has multiple jobs and thus can only be seen as speaking on behalf of the Beeb when he is presenting on it.

He’s not directly employed by the BBC.

I doubt most people are aware of, or care about, the distinction; Gary Lineker is the lead presenter on one of the BBC's longest running and most popular programmes, and by any definition, works for the BBC. And therefore is surely expected to abide by the BBC's duty to be impartial?

He just compared the language (not the actions) from Braverman et al to the language used in 1930s Germany.

"It's lazy to say he was comparing the policy to the Nazis. He wasn't, he was comparing the language and the climate to certain aspects of what was going on in the 1930s."

But as we all know what happened in Germany in the 1930s became progressively ever more evil leading to the Holocaust, therefore any comparison between the UK now and Germany then is bound to raise concerns.

Not all 'free speech warriors' are hypocrites though. I think I'm a 'free speech warrior' and I think Lineker should be perfectly entitled to express his personal opinion, and as it hardly affects his competence (or otherwise) to discuss football on a football show, I don't see what the BBC are trying to achieve here.

Gary Lineker is of course absolutely entitled to his opinions on immigration and asylum policy, although I do wonder what would be his solution to people risking their lives crossing the Channel in small boats. But he also has to consider the responsibilities placed on him by his employer. Actually, I think this whole thing has been poorly handled, and used by both sides of the political spectrum for their own ends; IMHO all that was needed was an agreement between the BBC and Mr Lineker that he would refrain in future from making such comments in public; He is of course perfectly free to cease working for the BBC and then say whatever he wants however he desires.

He is a contractor isn't he? Not an employee.

As per my comments above.

He still gets paid by the BBC so he should abide by their rules and guidelines.

Yes! Or else move on, perhaps.

 

[WatcherZero]

Former DG Greg Dyke has waded in

I think what the BBC did yesterday was mistaken.

If you thought on Match of the Day tonight he had been talking about immigration policy, then I can understand the BBC’s position, but if he’s on talking about football that’s what he knows about, that’s what he is qualified to talk about and it doesn’t impeach, I don’t think, on the BBC’s impartiality.

There is a long established precedent in the BBC that if you are an entertainment presenter or a sports presenter then you are not bound by those same rules.

The real problem today is that the BBC has undermined its own credibility by doing this.

He says it could create the impression that the "BBC has bowed to government pressure".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/entertainment-arts-64895316

 

[Yew]

He still gets paid by the BBC so he should abide by their rules and guidelines.

I was not aware that his twitter feed was part of the BBC's scheduled programming.

 

[Philip]

Its actually written in the BBC guidelines as an example that Sports presenters can comment on Politics as its a 'low risk' unrelated subject.

He wasn't just commenting on politics though, he was attacking a new government policy and made a provocative comparison to further his point, and it's followed a number of similar incidents on his twitter over the years, seemingly part of an anti-Tory agenda, of which the BBC have already told him they're not happy about. It's a clear breach of impartiality because he represents the BBC.

 

[WatcherZero]

Pro conservative commentary for example from Andrew Neil (who was earning a quarter of a million at the BBC) in other channels wasnt censured and he was the Political Editor so firmly in breach of impartiality.

 

[Yew]

Yes because again it contradicts the impartiality. He has been warned a few times before about this so I don't see how he has much of a leg to stand on.

The BBC's impartiality rules only apply to it's output, the personal twitter feed of a freelancer is not inn scope.

Section 4: Impartiality - Introduction

Section 4.1

www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC is committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences. The term ‘due’ means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation

 

[Philip]

I was not aware that his twitter feed was part of the BBC's scheduled programming.

He represents the BBC however and is paid very well to do so, so he has a responsibility to maintain professionalism and follow their guidelines on any public channels.

Pro conservative commentary for example from Andrew Neil wasnt censured and he was the Political Editor so firmly in breach of impartiality.

In the end that's a separate issue, by the sounds of it Neil was in breach of impartiality, but it doesn't mean they should also turn a blind eye to Lineker's comments; they have asked him before not to make these political statements - and he has made it a lot worse for himself by mentioning 1930s Germany.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Premier League has told the 12 clubs playing today, the Professional Managers Association and the Professional Players Association that it wont entertain requests for interviews with MOTD today. It essentially frees them from contractual obligations to provide interviews if asked.

A spokesman for the Professional Footballers Association said: "We have been informed that players involved in today’s games will not be asked to participate in interviews with Match of the Day.

"The PFA have been speaking to members who wanted to take a collective position and to be able to show their support for those who have chosen not to be part of tonight's programme.

"During those conversations we made clear that, as their union, we would support all members who might face consequences for choosing not to complete their broadcast commitments.

"This is a common sense decision that ensures players won’t now be put in that position."

Gary Lineker latest: Presenter posts new refugees tweet as details emerge of BBC deal; Tory MPs vent anger over return; pressure mounts on corporation chairman

Follow the latest updates as the BBC and Gary Lineker agree a deal for him to return to presenting duties - and the corporation's chairman faces mounting pressure after its weekend football coverage was left in ruins.

news.sky.com

The Premier League has told the 12 clubs playing today that their players and managers will not receive requests for Match of the Day interviews, the BBC understands.

It has also said this to the League Managers' Association and the Professional Footballers' Association.

It comes after a number of players last night indicated they would not do post-match interviews with the BBC show, out of solidarity with Gary Lineker.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/entertainment-arts-64895316?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=640c3facff51f554d28c0d75%26Premier%20League%20clubs%20told%20MOTD%20will%20not%20ask%20for%20interviews%262023-03-11T08%3A49%3A38.255Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:05fd7b5b-3852-4079-9b18-e7b8beb22af1&pinned_post_asset_id=640c3facff51f554d28c0d75&pinned_post_type=share

Manchester last night:

https://twitter.com/FatboySlim/status/1634335584838713349?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1634335584838713349%7Ctwgr%5E17b6af8ce470e7005eb4970eccff24141bdc08ef%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2Fgary-lineker-latest-stars-pull-out-of-match-of-the-day-as-some-britons-cancel-tv-licence-over-bbc-row-12830851

 

[Yew]

He represents the BBC however and is paid very well to do so, so he has a responsibility to maintain professionalism and follow their guidelines on any public channels.

Could you provide a source for that obligation of impartiality on personal channels? The BBC says that is can accept the perception of impartiality

The external activities and public comments, for example on social media, of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality. Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest.

When we then consider the clauses in Section 15 mentioning impartiality:

A potential conflict of interest arises when there is the possibility that an individual’s external activities or interests may affect, or be reasonably perceived as affecting, the BBC’s impartiality and its integrity, or risk damaging the BBC’s reputation generally or the value of the BBC brand. Conflicts of interest may occur in any area of our work.

We see that there is a potential for a conflict of interest, so let's look in more detail at the guidance around impartiality

Conflicts of interest are not regulated by Ofcom, except where they may lead to a failure of due impartiality [1] .

[1] The Ofcom Broadcasting Code, Rule 5.8: Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.

It is clear that this only applies to things that would compromise the impartiality of the programme.

This reflects audience expectations of the impartiality and integrity of BBC output, in particular its news and current affairs.

This refers explicitly to BBC output, and no mention of private or other communications

The involvement of talent, or their agents, in the ownership or senior management of independent production companies making output for the BBC risks damaging the public perception of the BBC’s impartiality, independence and integrity. The BBC must maintain overall editorial control of all aspects of the content.

This talks about the BBC retaining editorial control of content made for the BBC, not of any personal communications.

Ergo, we can see that the BBC's impartiality rules only consider the editorial line of the programme, perhaps if the person in question was a newsreader of political pundit, could see a conflict of interest, but it is obviously irrelevant in the majority of football commentary.

Put simply, Linekers history of playing for various football clubs over his career is more likely to make Match of the Day impartial, as compared to his discussion around government policy.

 

[DarloRich]

How about the regime of the current incumbent of the Kremlin, to pick an example not entirely at random.

Indeed!

Also should not type on the train looking at the above!

 

[dangie]

Hasn’t Ian Hislop, plus others, who regularly appear on various BBC programmes been on ‘Question Time’ and given their views on political matters?

 

[SuspectUsual]

He represents the BBC however and is paid very well to do so, so he has a responsibility to maintain professionalism and follow their guidelines on any public channels.

So by the same logic, you think Alan Sugar should be sacked from doing the Apprentice?

 

[DustyBin]

Isn't the fact that the right wing of the Tory party, through the BBC in this case, are attempting to silence views they don't like exactly the sort of thing that happened in 1930s Germany?

As per a comment in the Guardian (of all places), is it not simply “cancel culture” being applied in reverse, i.e. by the right against the left? Say something we disagree with and we’ll kick off and have you silenced, de-platformed, sacked etc.? Two wrongs don’t make a right of course, but this is the atmosphere “we’ve” created……

Regardless of my views on Liniker or the subject he tweeted about, as a believer in free speech I’m uncomfortable with him being silenced. I’d perhaps feel differently if he spouted his rubbish during MOTD for example, but this was his personal Twitter. The whole episode has been very badly handled IMO.

It’s not really a great comparison though is it? You can’t compare everything to the Nazis. It’s a symptom of our appalling historical illiteracy in this country that everything just gets compared to Hitler and the Nazis, as if it’s everyone’s only frame of reference.

I’ve seen people accused of invoking Godwin’s Law (including on this very forum!) when politically expedient. Again, it works both ways doesn’t it? (But yes I agree, it is actually a poor/lazy comparison).

 

[Howardh]

GB News are, at 10pm tonight, having a "Match Of The Day" themselves. They've invited pundits in to talk about the games that they haven't any rights to show footage of.

It is not April 1 and I'm not making that up. Meanwhile, I'm getting ready for a train journey down to Congleton to watch a game that's all-ticket. No idea whether our commentator Adam has any political views that he wants to disclose!

 

[dosxuk]

As has already been pointed out, Neil's ability to be impartial when it matters, is well known. And unlike Lineker, it's highly unlikely that Neil was being watched by anyone who didn't already know their own mind, or Neil's personal views. Lineker reaches the youth and the undecided, allegedly (wildly inaccurate claims in both respects imho).

So you have zero problem with a political pundit posting his personal political thoughts on social media, even though he fronted the BBC's political coverage, because old people watch him and know his feelings, and that he will leave them at the door when he's presenting a programme?

But you have a major issue with a footballer posting his personal political thoughts on social media, even though he doesn't go anywhere near the BBC's political programming, because young people might be corrupted by his opinions, even though he will leave them at the door when he's presenting a programme (unless you're also suggesting he was likely to have gone on a rant about immigration policy while discussing West Ham vs Burnley tonight??)?

His slot was duly filled by a podcast hosted by Laura Kuunsberg, who has famously also had to leave the BBC since because it was becoming rather obvious she had strong opinions and was letting that affect the perceived impartiality of her role as a political correspondent.

You might want to check out the schedules for BBC One on a Sunday morning. You might be surprised who's presenting a keystone of the BBC's political coverage.

 

[Philip]

Could you provide a source for that obligation of impartiality on personal channels? The BBC says that is can accept the perception of impartiality

No need for a source, it's common sense that he should abide by his employer's guidelines.

So by the same logic, you think Alan Sugar should be sacked from doing the Apprentice?

I haven't seen what Alan Sugar has said but if his comments are potentially bringing the BBC into disrepute over political impartiality, then yes he should be held to account.

It someone who worked for Northern or TPE started publicly slating them on a public twitter or facebook page, or if they behaved badly while in uniform, they would more than likely be held to account for bringing their employer into disrepute. The Gary Lineker situation is a different context but he is still potentially bringing the BBC into disrepute, because he represents and is a face of the BBC, so that's why action has been taken. His twitter account might not technically be related to his BBC work, but many people will associate him with the Beeb whether he is presenting MOTD or making public comments on his twitter page.

 

[Howardh]

It someone who worked for Northern or TPE started publicly slating them on a public twitter or facebook page, they would more than likely be held to account for bringing their employer into disrepute. The Gary Lineker situation is a different context but he is still potentially bringing the BBC into disrepute, so that's why action has been taken.

He didn't say it on the BBC and he hasn't slated his employers. There really is nothing to see here, but now it's been blown right out of proportion and also blown up in the faces of those who want him silenced!!

From Brexit through Covid and Putin, are we now moving on to a period where the biggest political argument is over what people can say and where they say it?? Meanwhile half-a-billion is being sent to France to protect our borders when it could have been spent on the NHS. That's what I call news, and it's hidden beneath all this nonsense.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Regardless of my views on Liniker or the subject he tweeted about, as a believer in free speech I’m uncomfortable with him being silenced. I’d perhaps feel differently if he spouted his rubbish during MOTD for example, but this was his personal Twitter. The whole episode has been very badly handled IMO.

Completely agree. It's also turned what was a relatively minor incident of a presenter tweeting a rather contentious view into a massive controversy where Lineker is a martyr and the entire subject seems to be dominating the news for several days - a massive PR own goal.

 

[Philip]

He didn't say it on the BBC and he hasn't slated his employers. There really is nothing to see here, but now it's been blown right out of proportion and also blown up in the faces of those who want him silenced!!

From Brexit through Covid and Putin, are we now moving on to a period where the biggest political argument is over what people can say and where they say it?? Meanwhile half-a-billion is being sent to France to protect our borders when it could have been spent on the NHS. That's what I call news, and it's hidden beneath all this nonsense.

He represents the BBC and people will automatically associate him with the BBC because of his long term and high profile role he has within the corporation, so he should take some responsibility.

I agree that the whole thing is a nonsense, but I put most of the blame on Lineker for posting the tweet in the first place - he knew full well that it would put the Beeb in a difficult position, and he didn't need to do it. All it has done has stirred up more controversy and bickering between political sides.

 

[dosxuk]

I hope nobody was looking forward to watching football focus at lunchtime, it appears there is also a shortage of presenters and pundits for that programme too.

 

[Howardh]

He represents the BBC and people will automatically associate him with the BBC because of his long term and high profile role he has within the corporation, so he should take some responsibility.

I agree that the whole thing is a nonsense, but I put most of the blame on Lineker for posting the tweet in the first place - he knew full well that it would put the Beeb in a difficult position, and he didn't need to do it. All it has done has stirred up more controversy and bickering between political sides.

Responsibility for what? Upsetting the right?

I don't like the guy as a presenter (I don't like any of them) but I'm glad he speaks up for me when I can do little myself.

 

[43096]

He represents the BBC and people will automatically associate him with the BBC because of his long term and high profile role he has within the corporation, so he should take some responsibility.

I agree that the whole thing is a nonsense, but I put most of the blame on Lineker for posting the tweet in the first place - he knew full well that it would put the Beeb in a difficult position, and he didn't need to do it. All it has done has stirred up more controversy and bickering between political sides.

So you're happy with the hypocrisy of the BBC then? It's own Chairman arranged a loan for the (now former) Prime Minister - how is that impartial?

It is censorship. The sort of thing Vladimir Putin does.