brad465
Established Member
MOTD going ahead with no presenters, just match action, as nobody was prepared to stand in:
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Any thoughts on Gary Lineker’s tweets?
- Thread starter D365
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I didnt have motd presenters and pundits down as the next group of striking workers!
brad465
Established Member
Yes fortunately there are some like you who don't count as hypocrites here, Piers Morgan also seems to think so. It's some of the GB News presenters/commentators and some other high profile figures who have claimed to be in favour of free speech but in the case of Lineker are quite happy for him to be cancelled for his views. If there were no double standards I'd be more sympathetic to them, even if on their own specific views I don't agree with most of them.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 12,169
Absolutely sums up my feelings and then some.
Or ... the episode in question was only ever intended to be on iPlayer, not broadcast. Either way, it looks like it will be available for most to view (I appreciate not everybody has access to iPlayer).
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/celebs-tv/bbc-slams-attenborough-wild-isles-8239631
Kite159
Veteran Member
.
Just action, no words.
A good workaround and who knows it might be better than former kickball players talking away in a studio about how great that pass/goal etc was as they love the sound of their own voices.
Just action, no words.
brad465
Established Member
I did think this, but what will be most telling are the viewing figures (if they get published) tomorrow compared to average/last week. If it stays the same or goes up, then clearly it's worked out. If they drop markedly, then it's backfired.
dangie
Established Member
That will probably make MOTD worth watching. Back to the old days.
LBC Radio's James O'Brien had a couple of rants......
brad465
Established Member
Sounds like there won't be much if any commentary on MOTD tomorrow either:
There is also reporting that players are talking to the PFA about boycotting BBC interviews.
There is also reporting that players are talking to the PFA about boycotting BBC interviews.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,138
No pundits or commentators? Oh please don't tell me that I'm dreaming! If I watch MotD it's always recorded so I can skip through the banal interviews and analysis.
Tomorrow sounds perfect now. Hope viewing figures are through the roof!!
This has come from trusted sources as well ... we will see what happens.
brad465
Established Member
If it's that popular you have to wonder why the BBC didn't do a catch-up version with all that omitted.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,138
As and when I subscribe to NowTV (Sky for cheapskates) it's possible to watch the highlights of all the games without any punditry getting in the way. Have to navigate around a complex screen first!
I think highlights are also made available on YouTube for "free" but maybe just the goals?
Anyhow it is possible to do just that, watch the game without the waffle. A proper Premier fan will know exactly where to look!
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
I remember some furore in 2015 when David Starkey, a lightweight historian inclined to hissy fits who nevertheless seemed to have a good enough relationship with BBC bosses to be allowed to present various mediocre TV series on British history, claimed that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP were behaving like Hitler, and were far more troubling than the British National Party. I note that the BBC screened two series that year in which he was both writer and presenter, followed by another in 2017, but he does describe himself as conservative, so his impartiality is obviously to being taken as read.
Gloster
Established Member
At this rate they will be getting John Motson in to do the commentary. “Well, I have got a quite outstanding view from up here and a heavenly group of pundits.”
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
what's that commentary playing in the background? Oh, someone's saying 'they think it's all over : it is now!'
brad465
Established Member
Steve Wilson now confirming the commentators will be stepping down for this weekend:
Philip
On Moderation
This isn't about freedom of speech, this is about Lineker using his high profile BBC role to make sweeping political statements on social media, to attract attention and further his cause.
It is unprofessional and brings the BBC into disrepute - here you have this man making political statements with an agenda and he happens to be one of the BBC's highest paid employees, as well as the long term lead presenter of one of its most popular programmes, and all the while the BBC is supposed to be impartial. Of course Lineker's tweets are going to have a negative effect in the BBC retaining its impartial image.
Lineker has been warned before by his bosses about making these political statements on social media and he knows the score, so he can't complain that the BBC have run out of patience. The BBC need to stand firm over this; they'll lose more credibility if they backtrack. Lineker and his MOTD mates meanwhile need to keep their political opinions away from social media - or look for another job/broadcaster if they don't want to do that.
It is unprofessional and brings the BBC into disrepute - here you have this man making political statements with an agenda and he happens to be one of the BBC's highest paid employees, as well as the long term lead presenter of one of its most popular programmes, and all the while the BBC is supposed to be impartial. Of course Lineker's tweets are going to have a negative effect in the BBC retaining its impartial image.
Lineker has been warned before by his bosses about making these political statements on social media and he knows the score, so he can't complain that the BBC have run out of patience. The BBC need to stand firm over this; they'll lose more credibility if they backtrack. Lineker and his MOTD mates meanwhile need to keep their political opinions away from social media - or look for another job/broadcaster if they don't want to do that.
I expect figures will be up as many people 'tune in' just to see what they ended up broadcasting even without any interest in football.
He is a contractor isn't he? Not an employee.
And why are other employees allowed to do and say whatever they want?
Peterthegreat
Established Member
Particulaly why can Alan Sugar tweet about Mick Lynch?
Fleetmaster
Member
Awareness cuts both ways.
Is Gary Lineker now going to give his opinion on the French political discourse surrounding immigration?
Lest we forget, and I address all those people who seem to think the UK is on track to become a fascist state, France only just narrowly avoided electing an actual far right politician as their President.
If our Home Secretary is taking tips from the Nazi playbook, as Minister Lineker seems to think, are we also going to see him fairly say she is also taking her cues from present day France? They voted for Le Pen in their millions. You can fit the far right vote in this country into a League Two stadium. Doesn't even fill The New Den, ironically.
Herein lies the problem with bias. It afflicts people who are not very good at keeping things in perspective.
Gary Lineker found himself in a position where he went further in his language than someone who actually lived through the horror, because he has no perspective.
Boris Johnson was a proven traitor a few years ago, found guilty of lying to Her Maj. That stone cold fact got lost in the ether, because before and since, all manner of flapping gums like Lineker had already accused and convicted him of far worse, based on a comment here or an article there.
brad465
Established Member
Reminded me of Chris Evans on Top Gear, the first episode or two were comparable in views to the last ones of the iconic trio, but then they plummeted to the point Evans quit after just one series. My suspicion is the viewing figures will be very high at the beginning, but then drop off very rapidly after just the first game (I imagine they drop off over the show anyway, but this time faster than usual). If the boycott lasted another round of matches the viewing figures will be even lower then.
Fleetmaster
Member
And if someone wanted to refute accusations of bias, sticking to your guns as if this entire thing was engineered to force the BBC to either defend their policy of neutrality and apply it without fear of favour, or allow Lineker to blatantly violate it for reasons he has failed to articulate on Twitter, is also a pretty dumb way to go about it.
Alas, such reasoning is beyond the Twitterati. Too many characters.
Philip
On Moderation
He still gets paid by the BBC so he should abide by their rules and guidelines.
Other employees are not allowed to do and say whatever they want. You should look at the context of Lineker's tweet, he is attacking a new government policy and adds a little dig with his mention of 1930s Germany - this clearly contradicts the BBC's impartial stance, whom he represents in a high profile role.
For tax purposes. He's clearly an employee.
87electric
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,162
Politics has been brought into football in recent years. Qatar, BLM (taking the knee). BBC impartiality automatically then has problems.
The BBC negotiates with Lineker's limited company for his services. So he pays corporate tax. He is not an employee.
brad465
Established Member
Andrew Neil and Lord Sugar have made political/opinionated tweets while working for the BBC in the past and no-one batted an eyelid then. Either discipline everyone, or no-one, not some selective process like now.
Fleetmaster
Member
Unbelievable. It's not like this is ancient history.
The BBC is known to have had epic internal battles over whether it was right to comment on human rights in the context of sporting programming. There was a maelstrom of public discourse demanding that It should or should not.
It is well established that they chose to emit that content via Lineker plc precisely because they feared the ridiculous backlash of being seen to be supportive of human rights abuses if they said nothing.
The BBC of course had quite rightly predicted that no sooner had that gone to air, every man and his dog from the right wing and the left demanded to know why the BBC were offering an opinion on the human rights record of Qatar, but not Moscow, or the USA, or China, or Saudi Arabia, or any one of the hundreds of countries that the pragmatic business of international affairs and the simple basic reality of us being part of the world, requires us to deal with.
Saudi Arabia's team played in the match that immediately followed Lineker plc's takedown of the Qatari's, but nothing was said. Nothing was said for the entirety of the tournament about matters not related to football. Because once Lineker had made his speech, sad face emoji, it was time for the football. And as we all know, it is Lineker plc who gets to decide the running order of BBC programmes, not the BBC's editorial staff.
Having an opinion forces you to choose. And unfortunately for untrained commentators like Linkeker plc, it isn't long before you find you have put yourself between a rock and a hard place. His chosen method of escape is to say nothing and hope it all goes away.
You just answered you own question. Some people are trained to know how to be impartial, some are not.
He perhaps could have argued he was Mr. Irrelevant for the purposes of BBC impartiality before the World Cup, but the moment he chose to speak at great length on Qatari human rights as the presenter of that particular massively watched BBC sports programme, he lost all right to claim his politicsl viewpoints are irrelevant. It being well known that he had strong opinions on whether the BBC should have done that, or just kept silent.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Fleetmaster
Member
The irony is you didn't see the disconnect between these two contradictory statements.
Gary Lineker's job, such that it is, is to be a contractor who provides a service to the BBC and thus abides by their policies as a contractor.
The services he provides are football commentary, and as of 2020, commentary on the human rights record of Qatar, as part of a BBC Sports programme watched by millions, if not billions. The latter was evidently his choice, and he has no doubt reaped commercial benefit off the back of it.
No amount of sophistry will enable Lineker to ever claim he is just some random shmoe whose political views don't matter and whose BBC and non-BBC output can be so easily divorced from one another.
Herein lies the problem.
I am almost certain one of the techniques used by the Nazis was to get high profile Germans who were considered to be of sufficient racial purity, to speak in favour of the German race laws, and condemn in the most unParliamentary language, the inferiority of the Jews etc. Naturally, they had no doctorates and held no political office. They were just famous Germans.
There's inevitably always some way to show that even the most saintly of people, are acting remarkably like Nazis.
All you need is a talent for ignoring any sense of decency and a keen desire to destroy your target's credibility. In other words, a very large aversion to impartiality.
This isn't (ironically) a fair presentation of the problem.
You're effectively asking, for the purposes of argument, would anyone have cared if Mr. Lineker had tweeted his admiration of the responsible and measured language used by the government to justify their new migrant policy? How it reminded him of the glory days of Attlee and Bevin.
With the problem fairly restated to test how neutrality works if the tables are turned, then yes, I hope it is now extremely obvious that if Mr. Lineker had sent out such a Tweet, there would have been an enormous reaction, with people doing the exact same thing, just from the opposite aisle, asking (demanding) to know how it could possibly be that the supposedly neutral BBC is not doing anything about this famous presenter and his offensive opinions on matters he should ruddy well not have an opinion on while he is being paid by my licence fee. (or straight up just calling him crazy koo koo, and get him fired that way).
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).
It is ironic to keep bringing up Neil anyway, because he was effectively forced out of the BBC because they refused to accommodate his not unreasonable request for more sociable hours given his advancing years, and move his very popular late night show to the early evening. It was widely seen as an underhand means for the BBC to get an old white expensive dude off the airwaves, in favour of some diversity. 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.
Lord Sugar is a very different case. He is a Lord, obviously, so the situation you are effectively proposing, is that no politicians can have non-political presenting roles in the BBC. That is obviously wrong, another clear sign of the backward trajectory where we seem to want our politicians to have absolutely no real world experience at all.
And this is all ignoring the fact that if Linekers only defence is "what about X/Y/Z, they breach too?", he has no defence. Pun intended.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status