-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
Gary Lineker: Asylum policy comments and the BBC
- Thread starter RyanUK
- Start date
Squiggs
TS Team
I'm not sure the Lineker issue relates to bias per se. The issue is surely that the BBC is far too easily influenced by people in power?
I don't thing anyone has suggested that the BBC's actions over the last week show that they support the government's immigration bill. They haven't suddenly started reporting positively about the bill that is at the centre of the story. That's not why they acted, their actions instead heavily imply that they have capitulated to pressure from the government, and it is therefore far too easy for the government of the day to interfere with the BBC's operation.
And there have been recently been other examples that suggest it is not just political figures, it is anyone with enough power that seem to be able to interfere with the BBC.
Remember a few weeks ago when the BBC ran an accurate headline that Disney was planning to lay-off 7,000 staff? Maybe you don't because shortly after publication the headline was switched to Disney says Toy Story and Frozen sequels on the way as streaming numbers fall. The story still references the lay-offs, but it smells suspiciously like someone from Disney whispered into someone's ear what they were hoping to have in the headlines from the announcement.
I don't thing anyone has suggested that the BBC's actions over the last week show that they support the government's immigration bill. They haven't suddenly started reporting positively about the bill that is at the centre of the story. That's not why they acted, their actions instead heavily imply that they have capitulated to pressure from the government, and it is therefore far too easy for the government of the day to interfere with the BBC's operation.
And there have been recently been other examples that suggest it is not just political figures, it is anyone with enough power that seem to be able to interfere with the BBC.
Remember a few weeks ago when the BBC ran an accurate headline that Disney was planning to lay-off 7,000 staff? Maybe you don't because shortly after publication the headline was switched to Disney says Toy Story and Frozen sequels on the way as streaming numbers fall. The story still references the lay-offs, but it smells suspiciously like someone from Disney whispered into someone's ear what they were hoping to have in the headlines from the announcement.
Tom
TS Member
And how many pro-Remain politicians did it have in general? MEPs aren't generally selected for Question Time.
Farage was because of how well UKIP were doing in the popular vote at elections around then (which is what partially determines Question Time representation).
Ultimately, many many people from virtually any political wing and axis hate the BBC simply because the truth hurts.
Rick
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
UK government policy has a Nazi air about it in 2023 ? I thought that was the EU ?
www.bbc.co.uk
Johnson stands by Hitler EU comparison - BBC News
Senior Conservative Boris Johnson dismisses a row about his comparison of the EU with Hitler as an "artificial" media storm.
www.bbc.co.uk
Rick
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
Working for BBC News was one of the best jobs I've ever had. The bias thing is interesting, in my experience (for one year, 15 years ago), the BBC doesn't typically have an agenda, if anything it falls over itself not to do so - which causes its own problems. Like any media outfit, the BBC is thousands of individuals with their own opinions, coming from a pretty broad spectrum. Andrew Neil and Gary Lineker are hardly natural bedfellows.
When you write something that you as a journalist consider to be completely impartial, those looking for an agenda will find one. It's inevitable.
If someone doesn't take issue with what you have written, they take issue with what you haven't written, or in its placement/prominence against something else.
From the BBC Website tonight:
Imagine the Daily Hate referring to itself in the 3rd person in a headline such as that.
"Daily Mail denies it is mathematical bollocks claiming that an 'invasion' of billions of refugees are coming to island of 67 million"
It would never ever happen. Ever.
When you write something that you as a journalist consider to be completely impartial, those looking for an agenda will find one. It's inevitable.
If someone doesn't take issue with what you have written, they take issue with what you haven't written, or in its placement/prominence against something else.
From the BBC Website tonight:
Imagine the Daily Hate referring to itself in the 3rd person in a headline such as that.
"Daily Mail denies it is mathematical bollocks claiming that an 'invasion' of billions of refugees are coming to island of 67 million"
It would never ever happen. Ever.
Benzin
TS Member
The BBC's attempts to avoid being judged as impartial have had a run off effect of allowing certain views (from flat Earth woo-woo to anti-vaxxers) to be promoted with minimal to no response or calling out.
That is far more damaging. Especially as it was positioned as the "go-to" news source for many stories.
Unfortunately now it's shown itself to be potentially influenced by the government. And that IS a slippery slope.
As an aside, the Illegal Migrant Bill got voted through last night. The nasty party in full fascism swing it seems as none broke ranks.
That is far more damaging. Especially as it was positioned as the "go-to" news source for many stories.
Unfortunately now it's shown itself to be potentially influenced by the government. And that IS a slippery slope.
As an aside, the Illegal Migrant Bill got voted through last night. The nasty party in full fascism swing it seems as none broke ranks.
Rick
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
I think where the BBC has fallen down sometimes over the years is when they have taken a slightly bizarre approach to a debate, where there is a lot of evidence on one side and not much on the other and given two parties equal billing and equal airtime. That does feel problematic. It might be suggested that Brexit could fall into that camp.
The landscape that the BBC operates in is also problematic, so much of the print media is skewed to the right, so consumers of that take Umbridge with a service that contradicts (or at least, often challenges) the narratives in those papers. I think that there is often an assumption that every media outlet has to be biased one way or another and if something that is prominent, that you are 'forced' to pay for doesn't align with the media that you choose to pay for & consume, that is almost certainly going to ruffle feathers.
I have no real issue with the licence fee - but I recognise that it's problematic in a lot of quarters and probably doesn't help get people who could be allies on side.
The landscape that the BBC operates in is also problematic, so much of the print media is skewed to the right, so consumers of that take Umbridge with a service that contradicts (or at least, often challenges) the narratives in those papers. I think that there is often an assumption that every media outlet has to be biased one way or another and if something that is prominent, that you are 'forced' to pay for doesn't align with the media that you choose to pay for & consume, that is almost certainly going to ruffle feathers.
I have no real issue with the licence fee - but I recognise that it's problematic in a lot of quarters and probably doesn't help get people who could be allies on side.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Can you therefore provide the equal number of examples then?
As already mentioned pro-brexit MEP’s had full exposure to question time unlike the anti-brexit MEP’s.
The question time presenter just defended the dad of the ex-PM who is a Tory.
It is published that the BBC ensure that the QT audience are majority brexit supporting (to a 52/48 bias).
There is always this “the left wing bias” phrase yet when ever I ask for examples the examples struggle to materialise.
Rick
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
The two things aren't divorced from each other. Figures on the extremes have a negative view because an impartial organisation
I'll let @Tom defend his own points, but specifically on this one ... according to Dimbleby's book, the panel booking process is by party, rather than by individual. Therefore it seemingly wasn't the case that pro-European MEPs chose not to appear, it would be that the Westminster parties would put forward a Westminster representative, rather than a European one - at least in part.
A strategic error, perhaps.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Yet Nigel Farage had multiple appearances but did not belong to any mainstream party, and the Greens who had a few MEP’s rarely got the invite?
I mean that seems a trifle odd.
Squiggs
TS Team
Did she though? Or did she merely clarify a comment by one of the panel?
In many ways her comments were actually worse for Stanley Johnson, as she detailed why he is a wife-beater, who he beat, and when.
Well, I did cheer on Martine Croxall being gleeful over the Boris quitting stuff.
My own two pennorth over Mr Lineker...
Overpaid for what he does, they should rotate the local news sports reporters every week and save a couple of million quid.
He was right to speak, it has all been a good media circus event, but the only interesting bit...MOTD has lost about four fifths of its audience over my years of watching...nobody watches it anymore...but he gets all that dosh...the lucky sod must be earning about a penny a viewer a show!
Tom
TS Member
Think I've covered the MEP point. The criteria is popular vote share at the last general election. Greens did poorly in that relative to UKIP peak, but Lucas was hardly an absentee over the years.
If you insist on examples of claimed left/liberal/remain bias:
- "Pro-EU speakers [on the BBC] came from 13 sectors including business, academia, the care sector, the civil service and politics; but the pro-Brexit case was made almost exclusively by Tory MPs." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/bbcs-bias-brexit-has-proven-beyond-doubt-move-tim-davie/
- "the BBC was accused of institutional bias, after it was revealed that an internal document orders staff to use pro-abortion language." https://www.christian.org.uk/news/b...ally-conservative-views-says-former-reporter/
- Roles being advertised only for "black, Asian and ethnically diverse candidates”: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...dvertising-job-ethnic-monorities-b941600.html
Overall the nutshell is what I and others have said: Bias is seen on all sides because the BBC generally does a good job of providing impartial truths - which is often sore for both/all sides of any spectrum to hear.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Pro-EU speakers came from those sectors as overwhelmingly the experts in those sectors where in favour of the EU. In fact reports suggest the BBC and other news organisations desperately tried to get pro-brexit experts from industry and finance but very much struggled.
Indeed a big criticism of the BBC from the remain was that the BBC refused to say they could not find experts willing to speak up for brexit, rather they brought on politicians and pundits and gave them the same weight as experts from industry. The source you provide is a right wing pro-brexit newspaper and the article buries the above point.
Regarding the abortion point, I would want a source that is not a Christian news page reporting on the anecdotal evidence of an ex employee. I’m not saying it isn’t true I’m just saying the providence of that information is subject to bias.
Positive discrimination is a fair point of debate, however it has been prevalent across a wide range of organisations. There is often an under-representation of minorties and some would argue that if an organisation doesn’t offer fair representation then it should positively discriminate, I’m left wing but I’m torn on that point as it’s unfair on the individual applicants.
A 22/18 split on bias is within the margin of error in that poll reported in the I, and back in 2018 that demonstrated that the BBC probably had the right balance. Let’s take a look at what has happened since then:
2020 - Tim Davies appointed as DG (Tory activist and local council candidate for the Tory party).
2021 - Robbie Gibb appointed to the BBC board - ex political advisor to the Tory Party
2021 - Richard Sharp appointed chair of the BBC board - major Tory party donor and friend of the then prime minister and ex boss of the current primeminister.
The whole issue with the Lineker row is it demonstrates that the BBC has been populated by Tory party stooges, and they have not helped alleviate any concerns around a lurch to the right.