Has the BBC become a Tory tool?

[Coatigan]

Not really, he works for skysports they get their money through advertisements and subscriptions, anyone who likes it can tune in or pay, anyone who doesn’t can turn off or give them their money.

The issue with the BBC is they are funded by the license fee so everyone in the country who owns a TV has to pay up and if you don’t
you face criminal charges, then millions of pounds of that end up in Linekars pocket.

The deal with that is you abide by the BBC charter which prohibits social media posts like this (the Gov are proto Nazi’s ffs)

If he worked for BT, Sky, ITV etc there would be no issue and he knows it, but his posts in his high profile position (highest paid at the bbc?) put its very operating model at risk.

They generally get the most bland innoffensive people on their flagship shows for this very reason (Jenas, Shearer, Dan Walker etc) but Linekar has seemingly decided his social media posts are more important these days.

If Walkers had decided to can him or distance their brand from him because of the same private tweet, the public wouldn't be calling them right wing, pro-tory, anti-immigrant etc? And that is exactly what one-sided looks like.

By doing what the BBC did, they have shown a lack of being impartial, and are now rightly facing the reaction to it.

 

[law74]

Still makes him an employee and he still agreed to the BBC's impartiality agreement in order to be a presenter on the show. If it comes out that Linekar actually has never agreed to any 'impartiality' then yes the BBC are wrong to have suspended him, but so far that doesn't appear to be the case.

How can anyone take "BBC IMPARTIALITY" seriously when the Director General is a former Chairman of a Tory constituency, stood twice for election as a Tory, donated £400,000 to the Tory party and facilitated the loan of £800,000 for a self-servative Prime Minister.

This is state censorship and nothing else.
It was fine and acceptable for Linaker to highlight Human Rights abuses both on Social Media and on the BBC, but when he highlights potential Human Rights abuses in his own country being proposed by the party his boss is a member of the Nazti party try to silence him.
The Tories in control of the Beeb have shot themselves in both feet here, and instead of "having a quiet word" have placed themselves firmly on the front pages and open for a level of scrutiny they deserve but seldom get.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I agree that throwing around Nazi insults and comparisons is often done too cheaply without understanding and runs the risk of trivialising the horrors of the Nazis. However as numerous people have pointed out that isn't what he did, he made a specific point about comparative language.

I don't think he was for a minute suggesting our government is as vile as the Nazis. I think he was making a point about propaganda and the power of the spoken and the written word and where it can ultimately lead to. When I think of pre WWII Germany the question from history is not why did a bunch of psychopathic fanatics concoct their evil plan but why did an entire nation of ordinary people just like you and I allow them to execute it? The salutory lesson is that the German people didn't get out of bed one morning and decide to support one of the most murderous regimes in human history. The events of Nov '38 and beyond followed well over a decade of an explicit process both pre and post coming to power an important part of which focused on language that normalised abnormal thoughts and behaviour with a view to creating a passivity and acceptance in the broader population that 'something had to be done'.

So I think it is healthy we are having this discussion. It's a shame much of our public discourse is now undertaken on technology platforms actively designed to distort that discourse. Nonetheless I think what he said is a legitimate topic for discussion. This governments penchant for a certain type of sloganeering doesn't make it nazi but it does raise questions about it's behaviour; it's fitness to govern and where it is trying to take us as a country.

There is a certain irony in how the BBC have subsequently behaved in this spat in that during the 20s both Himmler and then Goebbels coveted the ability to exert pressure on ithe mass media and entertainment spheres but they did not have the financial wherewithal. In '27 Goebbels exhorted the party faithful to focus on public speeches as the most cost effective way for the Nazis to operate within their current financial constraints, at the same time he provided guidance for a level of message discipline that showed how much he understood the power of slogans repeated ad nauseum as a conditioning tool on a broader population.

(As an aside as we're on the subject. For what it's worth my own view is that whilst we must be vigilant in this country, more obvious parallels can be drawn with the MAGA movement in the US. As a simple example, if you look at the 'drain the swap' term, its been used in US politics since the late 1800's but the way MAGA used it clearly echoed Goebbels positioning of the Nazis participation in the Reichstag to their base).

First off I must say great post, I enjoyed reading that.

I don't really dissagree with much of that. Except to say personally I still don't think it was the right analogy to make and that Lineaker did it deliberately to get the reaction that it has. He could have said the rhetoric is similar to that of many modern countries and he dissagreed with it.

Anyway , it looks like things are rapidly escalating and drawing in more people, and neither side will back down.

Popcorn time.

 

[dave_blue12]

Indeed it is my opinion but it’s one I think is 100% right here.

Social media can make or break a career and everyone is watching and wanting to be seen on the right side at the moment.

The BBC have completely overreacted here so they can reap what they sow.

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

Credit: Charles Bukowski

On this issue I’m really not sure but they must realise that the are potentially damaging their futures with the BBC.

 

[DTKOAG]

And it all goes back to Boris and his loan arrangement

 

[blueinsa]

How can anyone take "BBC IMPARTIALITY" seriously when the Director General is a former Chairman of a Tory constituency, stood twice for election as a Tory, donated £400,000 to the Tory party and facilitated the loan of £800,000 for a self-servative Prime Minister.

This is state censorship and nothing else.
It was fine and acceptable for Linaker to highlight Human Rights abuses both on Social Media and on the BBC, but when he highlights potential Human Rights abuses in his own country being proposed by the party his boss is a member of the Nazti party try to silence him.
The Tories in control of the Beeb have shot themselves in both feet here, and instead of "having a quiet word" have placed themselves firmly on the front pages and open for a level of scrutiny they deserve but seldom get.

It is impossible to disagree with this.

The BBC actively allowed him to use their platform to make political statements when it suited them and the government im afraid and to do what they have done now is frankly laughable and can be seen as nothing more than kowtowing to government pressure.

It is an attack on free speech.

 

[JRockBlues]

This.
Shame so many Twitter trolls will casually slag off every pundit and presenter but they’ve really stood up to the plate principally on this one and are putting their jobs on the line

Talking of abuse to presenters... Here's what Adam Hills had tweeted at him last night after their segment on Lineker/Small boats crisis:

 

[Gabriel]

Indeed it is my opinion but it’s one I think is 100% right here.

Social media can make or break a career and everyone is watching and wanting to be seen on the right side at the moment.

The BBC have completely overreacted here so they can reap what they sow.

I agree with the BBC overreaction point, but I fear that ultimately it is the British public, and the World, that will reap what is being sown. All BBC employees, irrespective of their contract type, will now likely refrain from issuing their thoughts for fear of the consequences, or they will seek employment at outlets where freedom of speech and thought are accepted. That is unhealthy and dispiriting. The BBC belongs to everyone, not the political power of the day, whichever hue, and I’ve never met anyone who has lived abroad who hasn’t gained newfound respect for its work.

 

[Bentheblue]

So tomorrow night, no presenters, and no pundits, just more football.

Seems like win win to me, I rarely watch the biased shit these days, but I might watch tomorrow (though our result will be the biggest influence).

As the thread title says "ignoring the lineker stuff", so please take any political bollocks to a different thread.

Sod garlic bread, this is the future. One worry though, who’s going to tell VAR whether or not it was offside.

 

[Metal Biker]

The pundits and presenters are doing nothing more than what is right for their careers here, let’s get that straight.

Anyone seen to be crossing the imaginary picket line will get dogs abuse and they know it and it is that fact that is forming their stances here rather than any desire to show solidarity to Gary.

This will be tomorrows chippy paper soon enough as it always is and there will be no shortage of presenters lining up to fill his shoes if he doesn’t come back.

With plenty of "I've never watched MoTD, because I don't like football, but I support Lineker's comments and i'm going to boycott it until he is reinstated!" acts of protest being publicly announced.