(Citation required)
1 Like
Ditto, the âimpartiality clauseâ only applied to news and current affairs presenters anyway, and the BBC have previously âclarifiedâ that Linekerâs tweets are in a personal capacity the last time he was mildly controversial.
Though, even for news/current affairs presenters, when the government is clearly in the wrong it becomes a gagging order.
In any case there are multiple instances where the BBC have turned a blind eye to outside activities.
Thatâs not what Tim Davie said to the parliament Select Committee last year. Iâve highlighted the comments by Tim Davie that I think are pertinent as they relate specifically to Lineker, whereas some comments refer to people like Laura Keunnsberg and Sharon from Eastenders so arenât relevant to this discussion. The full transcript is available here.
Steve Brine: Gary Lineker is still tweeting that the Government are voting to pour raw sewage into our waterways. You and I have talked personally in the Committee before about Gary Lineker. You told me that you were calling him to check for his tweets. I care what he thinks about Spursâ attempt to win the Premier Leagueâit is going very well, I might addâbut not what he thinks about water quality. That is not why you pay him.
On these individual programme content reviews, in the context of some of those examples that I have just given, what are the yardsticks against which you are judging success? Many would take those examples I have just given and say you have a lot of work to do.
Tim Davie: We always have work to do.
Steve Brine: Not just across news. âEastEndersâ is not news, is it?
Tim Davie: I was going to say that, because I think each of those instances is different in itselfâvery different. They are different editorially. I think that is really important.
Steve Brine: That is why I picked themâbecause they are across the output.
Tim Davie: They are interesting, but I have different views on them. In news output, where a journalist is giving a viewâwhere they have assumed a positionâthere is a problem. By the way, we have hundreds of thousands of hours of outputâI will give you that sentenceâand, overall, I think we are delivering well. I do think that. It is important that we are proportional about this. Of course, in my job, you are going to get things where you go, âThat sentence wasnât delivered right.â
There is a real question on drama. With characters offering viewsâSharon is not offering the views of the BBC. We can debate that at length. It is important that you get drama from different perspectives, different writers and all that, but it depends on the context of that view and how it is offered. I think that is a different example.
Laura is exceptional. We can debate the merits of that particular booking. I do not think it displays BBC bias in the slightest. The audience saw it for what it was, by the way. By yesterday, with a front page and a headline, we had 28 complaints. I just looked at it, and I think we are up to 66 complaints. They saw what it was. It was bemusing. We can debate, exactly in the way you have debated, whether it was the right booking.
Steve Brine: Why go there?
Tim Davie: What I would say is that, as the BBC host, I thought Laura conducted herself in an exemplary fashion in a slightly difficult situation. We move on. But it doesnâtâI mean, the idea that that displays bias.
I think there are examples in what you said where you do say, âOkay.â This is where it gets more interesting for me. When we look at the reviews and weâre doing âBreakfastâ, âCountryfileâ, English language morning radio news programmes, the real things that I am interested in are those things where I think you have to sanction or not, or take action, Lineker included. We can debate that in a minute; I do not quite think he criticised the Government in that way, but he has to absolutely be withinâand I have talked to Gary. He was doing thousands of tweets and, overall, I think he is in a lot better state. He should not be at the standard of a news and current affairs executive, but overall that conversation goes on. I am very supportive of Gary. I think he is a brilliant presenter. It is work in progress in terms of where he draws the line, but we have had a good conversation. I think he understands the guidelines. But I am notâ
Steve Brine: When you had that conversation, did he say, âOkay, yeah. Letâs do this then, Tim. Letâs go through this. Letâs tick this box,â or does he say, âYeah, Iâve screwed up againâ? We are paying Gary ÂŁ1.35 million. He is down 10 grand on last year, but I am sure he will get by when his energy bill comes in. We are paying him ÂŁ1.35 million and he is a brilliant pundit on football.
Tim Davie: He is, yes.
Steve Brine: He is entertaining.
Tim Davie: He is.
Steve Brine: I donât care what he thinks about water quality. Why should we be payingâmy constituents are taxed through the licence fee; if they do not pay it, they go to prisonâfor somebody to give their opinion on water quality?
Tim Davie: With respect, you are not paying him to tweet.
Steve Brine: But he is doing it.
Tim Davie: My view is that overall, if you look in the round, I think people are smart enough to look at this sensibly. Gary and I have had a conversation and I think we have seen a massive improvement from where he was a few years ago in terms of his entry into party politics. I think that banning people completely from getting into any issues-based tweeting is probably the wrong position, but there is a standard there. We talk about it and I am very supportive of him.
2 Likes
Oooh. Fear of Big Brother, eh?
Hardly, I just take everything with a pinch of salt, every news provider has their own agenda and view point, whether itâs political or not and I might get struck down for heresy here 
even the Guardian 
.
I make my own mind up and donât take anything as gospel 
I believe absolutely every word of print in The Guardian. I enjoy it daily while eating my tofu before tying on my string sandals and going out with the dogs to hug a few trees.
8 Likes
Be very worried when they hug back 
1 Like
They whisper
1 Like
no you donât! since you then sayâŚ
so entirely hearsay - you didnât read the contract at all did you so why give the impression you did?
Unanswered so far as I see⌠certainly not a lawyer (although maybe a barrack room one eh 
)
You can OTOH be assured that SFers will call out BS and when making wild claims, always best to back them up with firm evidence
5 Likes
Compared to the RW alternatives the Grauniad does seem somewhat more reliable in its reporting.
Though bylinetimes seems to do some good quality journalism.
1 Like
Itâs interesting to note that during WW2 Churchill said he wished all the newspapers reported as truthfully and accurately as the Guardian. They told the real story e.g. when the battles in N. Africa were going wrong whereas the others, particularly the Daily Mail, made it sound like the British Army were giving the Germans a hammering. Churchill believed the public should always be told the truth.
Hitler actually commented about the stupidly inaccurate reporting in the Daily Mail.
2 Likes
Well, at least theyâve been consistent!
2 Likes
I think the Guardian is the UK version of Pravda akin to the morning star. on the other hand the mail and express are for the Union Jack rabid loonies, so for me its hard to get a non biased newspaper so I tend to use the googles news aggregations which collates all of the worlds press and try to sift out the obvious lies and propaganda.
aka The Daily Basket Case
aka The daily Vomit
1 Like
One of the well off guardian readers then ,string in your sandals! 
2 Likes
You got it in one 
2 Likes
The BBCâs specific rules are shown on this page:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bbc-impartiality-rules-what-gary-lineker-b2297335.html
So Lineker broke that trust and gets slapped for it. Big deal (but again, I bet itâs just a ploy to get a better salary with Sky).
What is pitiful is Linekers the infantile statement. His education level obviously hasnât changed since he gave up studying for a career in football. As if the boat people matter is comparable to the industrialised genocide of the Third Reich. Just the same Gary, init?! Good grief.
Whatâs hilarious is that you then you get hoards of people saying âGo Gary go!â.
1 Like
Youâve contradicted yourself by posting that article?
The BBC also has specific rules over the use of social media for all employees, including freelancers. These are:
Always behave professionally, treating others with respect and courtesy at all times: follow the BBCâs values.
Donât bring the BBC into disrepute.
If your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, donât express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or âcontroversial subjectsâ (as defined by Ofcom).
Donât criticise your colleagues in public. Respect the privacy of the workplace and the confidentiality of internal announcements.
So the only possible breach would be number 3, and then it clearly states â If your work requires you to maintain your impartialityâ, which as a sports presenter could just as easily relate to him being impartial with all sports teams. Nothing there states all BBC employees must be 100% politically impartial.
The part about the remit is the remit, itâs a red herring as it doesnât relate to him but the organisation. He canât have broken it as heâs not the BBC. If itâs decided the BBC had broken that part of the guidelines then perhaps in turn they could reprimand him for causing the breach, but unless it is formally stated that a breach occurred and the BBC were taken to task, theyâd have no cause of action against him.
The article has proved how incredibly subjective it all is and that in fact thereâs no evidence to date he has actually broken any rules. If the BBC was found to then as I said they could perhaps pass it along, and unless we see the exact wording of his contract (and having been involved with many contracts like this none of the ones Iâve seen have been as specific and strict as those for people who work for the news operation) we canât actually say heâs broken them, certainly not enough to the satisfaction that it couldnât easily be challenged in court.
3 Likes
I guess thatâs why he has 8.7 million followers James
No he didnât James.
Thereâs an old saying James, when youâre in hole, stop digging. You are just making a fool of yourself throwing out wild inaccurate statements.
4 Likes
Which rule are you specifically relying on because I see no rule in what you have referenced to have been broken.
The only one I see which goes anywhere near what you profess to have been breached is Rule 3
âIf your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, donât express a personal opinion on matters of public policyâ
but his work doesnât as far as can be seen which seems to be borne out by the BBC themselves. Besides which, time has moved on since the Independent published that content and events have overtaken it.
as @John_Scully so correctly suggests:
3 Likes