Categories
Even Piers Morgan is backing Garry Lineker – politicalbetting.com
Even Piers Morgan is backing Garry Lineker – politicalbetting.com
Bad news @GaryLineker – I’m your defence. ?? https://t.co/1XEniEhFyO
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Their soccer coverage - why not start there? - doesn't contain any political message, as far as I'm aware.
And their most viewed programs from 2022 - Peaky Blinders, The Tourist, The World Cup, SAS Rogue Heroes and The Responder - don't seem to be particularly left leaning.
Now, you might make the case that their natural history programmes have an environmental bias, and that many of their presenters of political programmes have left liberal leanings. (Albeit Andrew Neil and Roy Liddle seem to have been the other way inclined.)
I'm reminded of the famous journalism study by Reuters in Israel/Palestine. They pulled together a news report on a violence in Gaza. Israeli students overwhelmingly saw the piece as pro-Palestinian, and gave dozens of reasons why. Palestinian students overwhelmingly saw it is as pro-Israel, with equal numbers of reasons.
Because it turns out we don't really want impartiality. We want to watch current affairs that reinforces our existing prejudices.
Just the BBC, Cruella and the rest of the Tory filth who stands against Lineker.
It is the weirdest of weird organisations.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/11nv7z7/us_states_that_have_chicken_shops_in_the_uk_named/
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1634251332717776896
Hmmm. Peston might remember the whole Kelly farrago, and Campbell's dirty little hands in it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3459141.stm
To be fair, if you wanted to hang around with people with... how to put this... sexual baggage, then the 1970s Liberal Party Parliamentary Party was the place to be.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilüfer_Demir
The power of photojournalism.
Will it even happen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1RN0BQsBsE
He also went to Chequers with the Blairs as he had done with the Thatchers, he was basically a Libertarian who sucked up to the powerful and establishment, which is not much of a surprise
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487217/Jimmy-Savile-harassed-music-boss-wife-Chequers-dinner-party-hosted-Tony-Blair.html
'If you’re wondering what happened in the uk, imagine that Trump was Prez and he got the host of Monday night football fired because that former QB called him out for saying some horrid fascist level stuff. And you’d still only be part way into how crazy this poor country is now"
Like Donald Trump sucking up the Clintons in the 1990s.
Interesting that those on the illiberal left love cancel culture until someone who says what they think is cancelled - then they turn on a sixpence.
He was one of the ultimate masters of being able to play the game... He probably didn't have any true allegiances other than in the sense of what XYZ could do for him.
Any news yet?
The Beeb get three randomers off the street who'll do it for a fraction of the cost and probably be glad to do so
They do a MOTD Spitting Image puppets satire edition
They cut back between match edits to an empty studio where the only noise is a porn sex moan through a mobile phone
They get Ron Manager from the Fast Show to appear
The list is endless! They should be happy this opportunity to shake up the format has arisen. Probably.
I don't think I'm 'Tory filth' either.
Dispassionate rationalism is in short supply.
Starmer could show leadership in a year or two by bringing an end to all this nonsense, and changing not only things like the honours systems, the lords and the voting system, but bringing an end to all this quasi-banana state nonsense in the BBC's susceptibility to political patronage.
It's not a bad idea in theory for BBC employees in general to maintain political impartiality, but get away from the news sector of it, and especially up to the big celebrity end, and restricting them is just not going to work - is anyone going to be in any doubt that Lineker despises the government if he happens not to say it a lot from now on?
Basically they might as well give up and just focus on keeping the news field impartial.
Are we to believe Lineker is such an influential figure his every utterance is of cosmic import? I don't think so either.
After nearly 14 years in Government, you have to expect a little criticism and negative comment - the notion of popular acclaim and rose petals strewn where'er a Minister strides is fanciful in extremis.
The other side is the extent to which Lineker, as a BBC employee, is bound by the charter of the Corporation. Does a individual, posting from their own Twitter account, speak for the organisation for whom they work?
That leads to the question of whether the BBC should be neutral or impartial and there's a big difference between the two. Neutrality is more about saying nothing - impartiality is showing both sides of an argument and allowing the viewer/listener to make up their own mind.
I don't want to be told what to think by any news organisation - indeed, as soon as a news outlet says they are "fair and balanced" I assume the very opposite is the case. I'm happy to hear the arguments from both sides and indeed all sides - the role of the investigator is to ask the difficult questions, probe the weaknesses and uncover the fallacies in the argument. That's what I want the BBC to do (because Sky, GB News and Talk TV won't).
Asking questions about the legislation, asking questions about the £500 million we are handing over to France to help them stop the boats - that's how democracy works and that's how political decisions should be questioned.
Lineker is irrelevant to this - he's a football pundit. A more self-confident Government would ignore his views - a more self-confident BBC would ignore the calls of Government supporters and treat it as an internal matter. The fact both have seen fit to respond as they have speaks volumes.
The authority of the government and Daily Mail draining away entirely.
It all seems appropriate on letter of BBC 'law'. But people don't seem to care about that, even those with no reason to agree with Lineker.
He crossed a line by comparing them to Nazis, and well he knows it. He just think he has enough support out there to face the BBC down and call their bluff. He's goading them.
He will probably find that, just like Clarkson and Top Gear, he is not indispensable.
No-one is.
Her only clear reference to the photo that had such a monumental impact on British politics, is (translated);
“Raise your voice to the policies that make that baby the subject of this photo, not to the person who took the photo!”
That's what you say when someone posts something that doesn't accord with your politics, right?
I don't care enough about you to off-topic you either. I tend to ignore your posts.
Sorry.
Morgan has backed Lineker many times before.
https://twitter.com/nesrinemalik/status/1634255673981562880?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
The BBC guidelines will have to catch up - people just don't buy that everyone in the organisation with a voice needs to muzzle themselves, certainly not celebrity football presenters, even if that is what the rules say. We now already know his views, so enforced silence won't change that people know what he likely thinks.
The BBC apparently has judged Lineker and Attenborough to be non-partisan. But "the BBC" is not non-partisan. The people who have to sign off this kind of thing are partisan.
How - with a straight face - can anyone defend Tory implants at the BBC signing off the removal of Lineker and Attenborough for being non-partisan? Because there is no way at all the Director General hasn't OK'd this. And he is hardly on his own in being a Tory implant.
That is the basic problem with the faux-outrage over especially the Lineker tweet. The BBC cannot fairly declare his tweet to be in breach of policy when the people running the policy are in breach of policy themselves...
I wonder if the programme went too far with the gloom and doom and wasn't the kind of thing that fitted in a slot for what is essentially a light programme with pretty pictures and cheesy musack.
Never really been a fan of these so called block-buster wildlife documentaries, although I've nothing against Attenborough himself.
For a contrast with how programmes used to be done, it might be interesting to view the new series against Julian Pettifer's 'The Living Isles'.
Employers can be permitted to oust or punish employees for expressing an opinion. It surely depends what is in their contracts. Personally I find that angle on this to be misguided, since there's nothing untoward, to me, in the BBC having some rules about what those who work for it can say. ITV didn't like what Piers had to say and fired him/forced him to be sacked, and as his employer that was their right.
The issue is whether the BBC rules are realistic for big stars, or reasonable to apply to everyone in the organisation, such as in entertainment. I imagine they fear what might be unleashed if all their employees were able to express their political views. But the current seemingly blanket restriction just isn't going to work.
Which one is it?
Viewing figures might even be ok. But if viewers really only wanted highlights packages without punditry I feel like that would have happened before now - people like to see some old pros trading banter and stock analysis, makes it feel more chummy, the sort of thing millions of people do themselves when discussing the matches the next day at work or school.
In that case would you mind rescinding the earlier off-topics you gave me. Thanks in anticipation.