The Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

All the pundits were silent when doing the world cup which looking back seems odd now we have this caffufle.

 

 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

All the pundits were silent when doing the world cup which looking back seems odd now we have this caffufle.

 

 

No they weren’t. Lineker was encouraged by the BBC to speak out about Qatar which he did. 

which makes this saga even more ridiculous 

[markavfc40]

10 minutes ago, Dillon66 said:

I think the point a lot of people are forgetting, is that quite a high number of people are actually in agreement with the government's proposed new policy, that Lineker's got his knickers in a twist about. (I'm not buying or selling either way as I don't claim to know enough about the subject). There'll be the usual virtue signalling c-listers versus the so called right wing pundits calling each other names for a week and then it'll die down.

It is not really about what he said is it, which was actually factually correct. It is about him having the freedom to say it.

I am in zero doubt we unfortunately have people in this country who agree with the government policy and lap up the rhetoric they use. Racists and xenophobes will be wanking themselves stupid over it. The government ministers, right wing rags etc have been free to express those views. Lineker and others should be free to oppose them and call them out on the way they express them.

Edited March 11, 2023 by markavfc40

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Is that not representing the interests of both the left wing (who typically focus on social issues), and the right wing (who focus on economic ones)?

If you asked left wing and right wing parties what they would wish to be included editorially, they would naturally answer as above, and care less about the other. 

Is that not just part of the balance?

It's certainly why both left and right complain about bias, I'd agree. But personally it's not "part of the balance" - because, for example (again hypothetically) if they do a programme about the economy, or a series of programmes or interviews or etc. they don't (IMO) balance the arguments with expert views/analysis from both (or multiple) sides nearly enough.  The same is true in other niches. It's obviously immensely difficult, but I think they've got worse at it, less rigorous, more timid.

[sidcow]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Source? 
 

and even if your assumption is correct, does it make an unlawful policy fine? To risk being pulled from MOTD as well, the majority of Germans were probably ok with the rhetoric and laws in the 30’s. 
 

also the way we’re heading, we’re not far from a majority supporting the death penalty. Does it make it right too? 
 

Ruling by popular opinion is not the way to rule. 

I don't think he's seen opinion polls recently. 

One of the reason why is pisses me off when Braverman et al keep banging on about this is what the British People want.   Well we'll see just how dear it is the their hearts when the next election happens. 

[HKP90]

3 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

It is not really about what he said is it, which was actually factually correct. It is about him having the freedom to say it.

I am in zero doubt we unfortunately have people in this country who agree with the government policy and lap up the rhetoric they use. Racists and xenophobes will be wanking themselves stupid over it. The government ministers, right wing rags etc have been free to express those views. Lineker and others should be free to oppose them and call them out and the way they express them.

It would be different if he said it on a BBC platform. Are we saying that all presenters must privately believe and agree with the editorial position of their employers. 

I doubt all of us privately agree 100% with their employers stance on things. He does a job, but he's also a human. 

[chrisp65]

14 minutes ago, Dillon66 said:

I think the point a lot of people are forgetting, is that quite a high number of people are actually in agreement with the government's proposed new policy,

[sidcow]

6 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

All the pundits were silent when doing the world cup which looking back seems odd now we have this caffufle.

 

 

The entire justification for being there was to highlight the situation out there, criticise what was going on. Essentially make overtly political comment about the regime.   It was the stock answer chucked out time and time again. 

[trekka]

[Dillon66]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Gee thanks...

[HKP90]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's certainly why both left and right complain about bias, I'd agree. But personally it's not "part of the balance" - because, for example (again hypothetically) if they do a programme about the economy, or a series of programmes or interviews or etc. they don't (IMO) balance the arguments with expert views/analysis from both (or multiple) sides nearly enough.  The same is true in other niches. It's obviously immensely difficult, but I think they've got worse at it, less rigorous, more timid.

But if said experts don't really care, and/or aren't pushing agendas on all arguments equally, why would they be bothered to argue with equal vigour on them? 

To pretend they are would equally imbue bias.

[sidcow]

4 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

It would be different if he said it on a BBC platform. Are we saying that all presenters must privately believe and agree with the editorial position of their employers. 

I doubt all of us privately agree 100% with their employers stance on things. He does a job, but he's also a human. 

Has it ever been tested in Court? I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on. 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Dillon66 said:

I think the point a lot of people are forgetting, is that quite a high number of people are actually in agreement with the government's proposed new policy

That's probably true, but I don't think it matters one way or the other. It's not the job or role of the BBC to editorially go with whatever is popular with people at any given point. I think what they are supposed to do is to analyse the pros and cons, discuss the implications and report that analysis and information to the people in a neutral manner. They are not there to say "the government wants to do this thing and lots of people seem to like it" and leave it there - they should as a minimum also say "the government wants to do this thing and lots of people don't like it, and there are the following questions as to whether it will work - is it compatible with the law? where do the ysend the asylum seekers they reject for having crossed illegally - there's no agreement with France or the EU, they can't fly people back to Iran or Syria because there's no agreement and anyway there's a civil war there...and..etc.". Give us facts and let us decide or change or keep our views based on that, don't just tell us what "(a fair part of) we" think already

[Dillon66]

10 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I don't think he's seen opinion polls recently. 

One of the reason why is pisses me off when Braverman et al keep banging on about this is what the British People want.   Well we'll see just how dear it is the their hearts when the next election happens. 

I've seen plenty of polls thanks. The next election won't be decided by Gary Lineker but by the balls up the government have made of many things......I look forward to the Labour party doing much better.

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

No they weren’t. Lineker was encouraged by the BBC to speak out about Qatar which he did. 

Other way round, as I understand it. Lineker wanted to and they agreed that he could, and the stuff /script of what he said was worked out and agreed with the management.

[HKP90]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Has it ever been tested in Court? I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on. 

They certainly couldn't sack him, surely. He's not expressed any views (as far as I can tell) that would qualify as hate speech under UK law, because he did not express, or was not  motivated by a hostile viewpoint.

 

[Dillon66]

20 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

One side he references an actual party, the other something non-existent. 

Come again ?

[Xann]

5 minutes ago, tinker said:

Oh that's alright then, let's wait and see what we are given for the £1bn we pay in. Our local news is still in standard definition,  even YouTubers can film in 4k, it's a huge joke on us all ( Midlands based viewers)

The fact we have no media presence takes so much away from the Midlands,  we are not even in the debate when it comes to the North and South divide. It's a disgrace, a travesty that any decent mayor should be able to sort out sharpish, Street is hopeless. 

I'm in London, my local news isn't 4K. You get a slate and a countdown to when the regular TV starts again.

Also 4K everything is overkill. Bandwidth should be scaled accordingly, if you're paying for finite resources?

Birmingham's getting a beefed up media presence. It's being sorted by someone that isn't old school BBC. That's the now.

14 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Isn't the new BBC facility in Digbeth going to be basically surrounded by private studios and facilities?  I assume they could ramp up productions in Brum just by hiring people and space without really needing to invest much in bricks and mortar. 

I'm told that if you're looking to work at the BBC in the coming years? Then Birmingham, being scaled up, is a better bet than London, being scaled down.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Other way round, as I understand it. Lineker wanted to and they agreed that he could, and the stuff /script of what he said was worked out and agreed with the management.

Either way, bizarre that they encouraged him to not only present a view on his personal socials but whilst representing the BBC in this case, and censored him for criticising the government here. 

[markavfc40]

Sums it up nicely in layman's terms.