Will Gary Lineker be presenting Motd on Saturday?
- Thread starter Bingoman
- Start date
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the BBC News website is entirely self referential today. It’s all pictures of Lineker and the havoc wreaked on the schedules. Disappointingly what he said and why he said it is getting pushed out of the limelight. This story is, or should be, about the “stop the boats bill” and the BBC’s reaction to that.
There are questions about impartiality, of course. But they aren’t the ones being asked. The questions that Lineker’s tweet should bring to mind would be how would the BBC have interpreted “balance” and “impartiality” in Germany in the 1930s.
The “stop the boats bill” is not six of one and half a dozen of the other. The language of vilification and dehumanisation the government has been using towards people in desperate straits is not something we can turn a blind eye to. These things have not been challenged by the BBC News and current affairs coverage, or if they have it has been in a flaccid way. Typically by using the “balance” of an opposition party talking head. Yet Labour have fallen in behind the Tories on this. Their criticisms have been that they’d do it better. They slightly modified on seeing the way the wind blew in the Lineker storm, but not enough and not in the right ways.
This is a pivot issue. How a society treats the most vulnerable and the outsider is a canary test on its toxicity levels. Staying neutral when the air is poisoned is not an option.
There are questions about impartiality, of course. But they aren’t the ones being asked. The questions that Lineker’s tweet should bring to mind would be how would the BBC have interpreted “balance” and “impartiality” in Germany in the 1930s.
The “stop the boats bill” is not six of one and half a dozen of the other. The language of vilification and dehumanisation the government has been using towards people in desperate straits is not something we can turn a blind eye to. These things have not been challenged by the BBC News and current affairs coverage, or if they have it has been in a flaccid way. Typically by using the “balance” of an opposition party talking head. Yet Labour have fallen in behind the Tories on this. Their criticisms have been that they’d do it better. They slightly modified on seeing the way the wind blew in the Lineker storm, but not enough and not in the right ways.
This is a pivot issue. How a society treats the most vulnerable and the outsider is a canary test on its toxicity levels. Staying neutral when the air is poisoned is not an option.
King Biscuit Time
Well-Known Member
Hard to see that Gary has done anything wrong according to the BBCs own unbelievably shit and vague guidelines.
Hard to argue that suspending him is consistent with the way other similar people in his position have been treated (ie they can tweet what the fuck they like in a personal capacity). The only difference here is that he's hit a nerve with the government.
Hard to reassure anyone else who contributes to the BBC in almost any capacity that they might not also face similar issues as Lineker at some point. And it's certainly reasonable enough cover for them to fuck shit up for a while if they fancy giving the BBC/Government a bloody nose.
Only way forward is for BBC to back down and review those shite guidelines. Really don't think the beeb want to let that genie out of the bottle tough.
Hard to argue that suspending him is consistent with the way other similar people in his position have been treated (ie they can tweet what the fuck they like in a personal capacity). The only difference here is that he's hit a nerve with the government.
Hard to reassure anyone else who contributes to the BBC in almost any capacity that they might not also face similar issues as Lineker at some point. And it's certainly reasonable enough cover for them to fuck shit up for a while if they fancy giving the BBC/Government a bloody nose.
Only way forward is for BBC to back down and review those shite guidelines. Really don't think the beeb want to let that genie out of the bottle tough.
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
I really, really just want someone to try and articulate exactly what 'impartiality' means in this context.
True impartiality is, of course, impossible. What we chose to talk about, and not talk about, automatically renders any notion of true impartiality void, so at that point... what are we talking about?
Does the government, even this government, really think it could get away with "no criticism of the government"? So at that point, where is the line drawn that Lineker transgressed? And is there a similar line for being positive about the government?
I know there's obviously not actually a coherent, justifiable principle behind any of this, but I really would love them to at least be put in a position to explicitly recognise that fact.
I do recognise, though, that the main focus should still remain the attack on immigrants, whether refugees, asylum seekers or, y'know, simply anyone else.
True impartiality is, of course, impossible. What we chose to talk about, and not talk about, automatically renders any notion of true impartiality void, so at that point... what are we talking about?
Does the government, even this government, really think it could get away with "no criticism of the government"? So at that point, where is the line drawn that Lineker transgressed? And is there a similar line for being positive about the government?
I know there's obviously not actually a coherent, justifiable principle behind any of this, but I really would love them to at least be put in a position to explicitly recognise that fact.
I do recognise, though, that the main focus should still remain the attack on immigrants, whether refugees, asylum seekers or, y'know, simply anyone else.
The media like nothing more than navel gazing.
ska invita
back on the other side
Being debated on Monday IIRC so will be back in focus in the news merrygoround
I think the current story very much IS about the BBCs reaction no?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Well yes, but the focus is wrong.
andysays
Love and solidarity
I agree that it's wrong, but it's kind of inevitable/understandable that this would be the focus, at least in the short term.
It does, however, bring the stop the boats bill to wider public attention, and provides us the opportunity to have conversations about it which might have been more difficult without the MotD thing to use as a way in.
ska invita
back on the other side
wheeling this bloke out on to the BBC sunday politics show to say this this morning suggests a bit of doubling down to me - maybe not doubling but id be surprised if the tory bosses roll over? who knows
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
Impartiality to the BBC means that if someone says the sky is blue, equal airtime is given to "the sky is purple" brigade. If someone says a one-liner that could potentially be construed as mildly left-leaning, Farage gets to go on QT another 4 times. If Lineker says something carefully worded and accurate about government language, Series 1 of "Dinghy Scuttling - Live with Suella" gets commissioned.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And if a newsreader calls Corbyn 'hard left' when reporting on a UK election, it is balanced out by a report on his antisemitism.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
The whole impartiality thing is a red herring. He made the comment as a private individual on his personal Twitter. Nothing to do with the BBC.
If someone holds an opinion and wants to voice it, as long as it's not illegal who the fuck is their employer to say they can't?
Ted Striker
Foot's on the other hand
VAR not needed for this verdict: GB News 1 - 0 Gary Linekar.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
To be slightly less flippant, climate science is a good example of where 'impartiality' falls down. For years every news report on climate emergency has been "balanced" by some no-mark YouTuber probably called Derek who thinks it's a hoax designed to trick us into looking after the planet when there's no need to.
Ostensibly it's because there's no settled scientific consensus on the man-made contribution towards climate change; set aside that that's complete bullshit for a second, but even that there's an editorial decision to be made as to what constitutes "settled scientific consensus" means there's no impartiality. It's the decision making and inherent bias of the person or people taking such an editorial decision.
Ostensibly it's because there's no settled scientific consensus on the man-made contribution towards climate change; set aside that that's complete bullshit for a second, but even that there's an editorial decision to be made as to what constitutes "settled scientific consensus" means there's no impartiality. It's the decision making and inherent bias of the person or people taking such an editorial decision.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
I mostly agree. Employers (or in this case not the employer but the organisation holding a contract with the individual) will near universally have a "bringing the company into disrepute" type clause in place, but that's not to curtail freedom of speech; it's to curtail freedom from consequences.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
That’s true. However the wider question is invited by the BBC’s reaction, and perhaps more so their preemptive censoring of the Attenborough programme. Is it the BBC’s job to not upset government? Their behaviour in both of these cases does rather not only prove Lineker’s parallels for him, but widens them to ask ourselves about the meaning and value of “balance”.
Steel Icarus
we move
I could probably say what I liked about government policy on social media as long as it wasn't too extreme or defamatory, but photos of me falling-down drunk or a post criticising the college bosses or other colleagues would likely land me in trouble. I think if I'd posted what Lineker did I'd be fine, he wasn't breaking the law, defaming anyone or swearing.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I’m glad to see that the role of Richard Sharp is being questioned, although in the later paragraphs as it were. That deserves more focus.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
It begs the question of how anything Lineker said would bring the BBC into disrepute. Unless of course the "repute" being strived for is that of toeing the governmental line.
Also something that is being lost in amongst all the other noise. It's been widely suggested that BBC top brass have caved to Tory pressure in censuring Lineker; is it not equally the case the BBC top brass are the Tory pressure themselves?
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Perhaps it is time that the BBC was freed from government influence, and the extorted £4Bn.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
Keep banging that drum Sas, nice one 
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
I do wonder if it wasn't for the allusion to "1930s Germany", whether the Tories et al would have been able to make quite so much hay out of this.
Invoking the Nazis can be a pretty volatile thing, and will often allow those acting in bad faith to clutch their pearls and make that the issue, rather than the more substantive point being made (regardless of how accurate or not the comparison actually is).
Pretty sure he's been publicly critical of the government before, even specifically about their treatment of immigrants/refugees. It's probably not just the Nazi stuff, a lot of things will have contributed (including, no doubt, wanting other stories out of the headlines and public thoughts). As I say, though, do still wonder how much influence that particular aspect of the whole thing has.
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
One thing I've never really understood: why is private media ownership seen as any less problematic, exactly?
I do get at least some of the objections to and problems with state-owned media, but ultimately any specific media outlet is going to be controlled by someone. Why is it better for that to be someone with little-to-no democratic responsibility or accountability? Is it just a case of "at least then there's no pretence"? 'cause, sure, ok, but will your average member of the public really care? Or will they just consume what's available?
All for encouraging people to think critically about how they get information, but who exactly is going to do that if the media is owned by a handful of self-interested megalomaniacs?
Last edited:
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
The bloke who 'stood him down'
is a £400,000 Tory donor. Let's not ruin his knighthood eh?Aye. We watched the first 5 mins to see if owt would be said, and what it was like. Not much, and weird.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Most employers will have a "disrepute" clause of some kind but GL hasn't done that.
andysays
Love and solidarity
"who are the real Nazis?"
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Excellent post and whilst it's been fun watching the pundits and even players joining in and offering solidarity, there's been a sense in which the whole drama has shifted onto Lineker and the 'Beeb in crisis', not asylum. And just repeating what you've said, Labour's craven positioning has been awful. The main response I've seen from Starmer has been 'the government's asylum/small boats policy is a shambles' (at least as a headline, I've not had the stomach to read any more). The sort of positioning that seeks to gain support from those on the side of migrants along with those who oppose Britain taking migrants - and in doing so does nothing to establish a position, build support or indeed say anything about migration,
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
which in turn is due to the government shouting about migrants and boats to take peoples' minds off whatever shitstorm was happening a week ago...
Similar threads
