[Football] Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

[Titanic]

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting MOTD

Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day until agreement reached on social media use - BBC statement

www.bbc.co.uk

Gary Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day until an agreement is reached on his social media use - BBC statement.
It follows an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the government's new asylum policy.
In a tweet, the presenter had compared the language used by the government to set out its plan to "that used by Germany in the 30s".

 

[Professor Plum]

More North Korean stuff from the state broadcaster stuffed with Tories on its executive board and senior management. Good that Gary went out defiantly with his Gaza tweets tho. He doesn't have my politics but it is refreshing to come across a liberal who doesn't feel they need to dance to the Establishment tune and punch left all the time to stay on the right side of the most powerful in society.

Isn't it hilarious that all those rightwingers who bore us senseless on the likes of GB News over how free speech is being curtailed in this country never defend the free speech of those they disagree with like Lineker? Almost as if they are all massive hypocrites.

He can think and say what he likes as a pundit / TV presenter. Unless he works for the BBC. That’s the long-established very strict code that goes right back to Lord Reith and that’s the entire issue around his pronouncements. Gaz decided he was above all that impartiality bollocks.

After he’s left the BBC he can say what he wants.

 

[Guinness Boy]

He can think and say what he likes as a pundit / TV presenter. Unless he works for the BBC. That’s the long-established very strict code that goes right back to Lord Reith and that’s the entire issue around his pronouncements. Gaz decided he was above all that impartiality bollocks.

After he’s left the BBC he can say what he wants.

Unless you’re a Tory. Then you get to present the Sunday morning politics show.

 

[ROSM]

He can think and say what he likes as a pundit / TV presenter. Unless he works for the BBC. That’s the long-established very strict code that goes right back to Lord Reith and that’s the entire issue around his pronouncements. Gaz decided he was above all that impartiality bollocks.

After he’s left the BBC he can say what he wants.

Well that's not quite the case. Working for the bbc covered a number of scenarios including employee, contract, freelance, service provider. However the rules as were only addressed salaried full time employees (there were other clauses differentiating news from entertainment etc) Hence why they changed them because it became clear despite Davie and Gibb's ire, that he hadnt broken any rules and was incorrectly suspended. Even now, it doesn't fully block lineker or others having an opinion but certain flagship programmes such as match of the day have wider controls than before

BBC updates ‘Lineker clause’ to restrict presenters airing political views

Rule names several high-profile presenters banned from sharing certain views on social media while programmes are on air

search.app

 

[Professor Plum]

Unless you’re a Tory. Then you get to present the Sunday morning politics show.

That sounds more like a Twitter-style bicker than any desire to confront the issue.

I don't watch the Sunday shows these days so I'm not sure who you're referring to. If you mean journalists who are openly supportive of one party or another, Iet's have a few names. As far as I'm aware all BBC journalists of note present politics shows very even-handedly. Andrew Neil is a well-known Tory but he would absolutely savage members of the Tory government. Remember when Boris Johnson refused to be interviewd by Neil at one general election or perhaps party leadership campaign when all the other candidates had agreed to it? That's a top political journalist in action. And perhaos the doyen of Sunday morning shows, Andrew Marr, well known for his Labour sympathies. Crucially though, he presented his political programmes in (what seemed to me like) a very balanced way. And that's the key thing. It would be hard to watch Marr and think he was slanting everything leftwards. When he eventually departed he stated that one of the reasons was he wanted the freedom to say what he really thought, hence his move to the New Statesman where he's doing a great job.

If Lineker had done the same, no one would have had a problem but he couldn't stop himself believing he was somehow above the rules of the BBC.

 

[jcdenton08]

I don't watch the Sunday shows these days so I'm not sure who you're referring to. If you mean journalists who are openly supportive of one party or another, Iet's have a few names. As far as I'm aware all BBC journalists of note present politics shows very even-handedly. Andrew Neil is a well-known Tory but he would absolutely savage members of the Tory government. Remember when Boris Johnson refused to be interviewd by Neil at one general election or perhaps party leadership campaign when all the other candidates had agreed to it? That's a top political journalist in action. And perhaos the doyen of Sunday morning shows, Andrew Marr, well known for his Labour sympathies. Crucially though, he presented his political programmes in (what seemed to me like) a very balanced way. And that's the key thing. t would be hard to watch Marr and think he was slanting everything leftwards. When he eventually departed he stated that one of the reasons was he wanted the freedom to say what he really thought, hence his move to the New Statesman where he's doing a great job.

If Lineker had done the same, no one would have had a problem but he couldn't stop himself believing he was somehow above the rules of the BBC.

I agree, but I think the point they were making (correct me if I’m wrong) is Laura Kuenssberg doesn’t perhaps demonstrate neutrality in the way Andrew Neil did.

And agree re: Lineker. Them’s the rules.

 

[Guinness Boy]

That sounds more like a Twitter-style bicker than any desire to confront the issue.

I don't watch the Sunday shows these days so I'm not sure who you're referring to. If you mean journalists who are openly supportive of one party or another, Iet's have a few names. As far as I'm aware all BBC journalists of note present politics shows very even-handedly. Andrew Neil is a well-known Tory but he would absolutely savage members of the Tory government. Remember when Boris Johnson refused to be interviewd by Neil at one general election or perhaps party leadership campaign when all the other candidates had agreed to it? That's a top political journalist in action. And perhaos the doyen of Sunday morning shows, Andrew Marr, well known for his Labour sympathies. Crucially though, he presented his political programmes in (what seemed to me like) a very balanced way. And that's the key thing. It would be hard to watch Marr and think he was slanting everything leftwards. When he eventually departed he stated that one of the reasons was he wanted the freedom to say what he really thought, hence his move to the New Statesman where he's doing a great job.

If Lineker had done the same, no one would have had a problem but he couldn't stop himself believing he was somehow above the rules of the BBC.

Andrew Neill is good. Laura K can barely hide her hatred of Labour. There's loads of examples, easily searchable, but I doubt you'll bother.

 

[Professor Plum]

I agree, but I think the point they were making (correct me if I’m wrong) is Laura Kuenssberg doesn’t perhaps demonstrate neutrality in the way Andrew Neil did.

And agree re: Lineker. Them’s the rules.

Laura Kuenssberg? Haha! She made a career out of ripping the government apart when the Tories were in power. Now it's Labour, perhaps she's doing the same thing. I always found her an aggressive Political Editor whoever she was speaking to.

All governments get brutalised, often for no other reason than they are the government. Last few times I watched HIGNFY it was all one-way traffic about how corrupt and useless the Tory government were being. Now that Labour's in I suspect they're getting the same treatment.

Often, people get ultra-sensitive about their party being strongly challenged by interviewers and seem not to recognise the same when it's the other lot. Then, apparently, it's just 'fair game'.

 

[Professor Plum]

Andrew Neill is good. Laura K can barely hide her hatred of Labour. There's loads of examples, easily searchable, but I doubt you'll bother.

But what am I searching for? LK being beastly to Labour politicians? Sure, but she's been an attack dog for years, and certainly throughout the Tory years. If you wanted to search for examples of BOTH, you would find both.

 

[jcdenton08]

Laura Kuenssberg? Haha! She made a career out of ripping the government apart when the Tories were in power. Now it's Labour, perhaps she's doing the same thing. I always found her an aggressive Political Editor whoever she was speaking to.

All governments get brutalised, often for no other reason than they are the government. Last few times I watched HIGNFY it was all one-way traffic about how corrupt and useless the Tory government were being. Now that Labour's in I suspect they're getting the same treatment.

Often, people get ultra-sensitive about their party being strongly challenged by interviewers and seem not to recognise the same when it's the other lot. Then, apparently, it's just 'fair game'.

I wasn’t offering the opinion myself, I was saying this is an opinion a lot of people hold. I personally don’t give a shit

 

[Guinness Boy]

But what am I searching for? LK being beastly to Labour politicians? Sure, but she's been an attack dog for years, and certainly throughout the Tory years. If you wanted to search for examples of BOTH, you would find both.

I see you're computer illiterate.

Here's her briefing Boris Johnson ahead of an interview that would have promoted his book. Ten second job.

Laura Kuenssberg's worst moments: From breaching impartiality to deleted tweets

BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg has faced multiple allegations of bias during her career – with the most recent incident involving a public…

www.thenational.scot

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Hang on, this thread's taken a turn – is Laura Kuenssberg taking over from Gary on MoTD?

 

[ROSM]

Hang on, this thread's taken a turn – is Laura Kuenssberg taking over from Gary on MoTD?

Swapping a right winger for a centre forward. Sounds like a Graham Potter tactic

 

[ROSM]

That sounds more like a Twitter-style bicker than any desire to confront the issue.

I don't watch the Sunday shows these days so I'm not sure who you're referring to. If you mean journalists who are openly supportive of one party or another, Iet's have a few names. As far as I'm aware all BBC journalists of note present politics shows very even-handedly. Andrew Neil is a well-known Tory but he would absolutely savage members of the Tory government. Remember when Boris Johnson refused to be interviewd by Neil at one general election or perhaps party leadership campaign when all the other candidates had agreed to it? That's a top political journalist in action. And perhaos the doyen of Sunday morning shows, Andrew Marr, well known for his Labour sympathies. Crucially though, he presented his political programmes in (what seemed to me like) a very balanced way. And that's the key thing. It would be hard to watch Marr and think he was slanting everything leftwards. When he eventually departed he stated that one of the reasons was he wanted the freedom to say what he really thought, hence his move to the New Statesman where he's doing a great job.

If Lineker had done the same, no one would have had a problem but he couldn't stop himself believing he was somehow above the rules of the BBC.

We have already addressed. (Which you've ignored,) that he wasnt above the rules. He was working within the rules so much so that they had to change them!

 

[ROSM]

I agree, but I think the point they were making (correct me if I’m wrong) is Laura Kuenssberg doesn’t perhaps demonstrate neutrality in the way Andrew Neil did.

And agree re: Lineker. Them’s the rules.

But thems weren't the rules. They changed the rules after the realised he was well within them

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

He can think and say what he likes as a pundit / TV presenter. Unless he works for the BBC. That’s the long-established very strict code that goes right back to Lord Reith and that’s the entire issue around his pronouncements. Gaz decided he was above all that impartiality bollocks.

After he’s left the BBC he can say what he wants.

BBC employees sticking strictly to political impartiality you say?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

But thems weren't the rules. They changed the rules after the realised he was well within them

Indeed. And although I have always like the Gaz, I have never had a problem with little Laura either.

(Maybe I'm simply used to interviewers demanding the moon on a stick from Labour interviewees, and am inured to it all).

(and if 'inure' comes up as tomorrow's Wordle answer I'm calling conspiracy)

 

[Skaville]

Des Lynam was better than Gary Lineker.

No reason why Lineker’s replacement cannot be better.

That’s a matter of opinion. Des was a great sports presenter but I think Gary’s football knowledge gives him the edge on MOTD.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I've disliked Linekar for lots of reasons over the years but these ones stick in the memory :

1. Slagging off England fans for being beaten up by Russians in Marseille. Apparently, that was all our fault. I think history on a number of levels proved him wrong.
2. Presenting MOTD in his pants to make it all about him. It's always all about him.
3. His brother. He's a ****. Not him admittedly but apples and trees and all that.

His political views are neither here nor there to me. I'm more aligned than not albeit I do roll eyes on occasion when he comes out with stuff but he definitely fails the "Would I fancy a pint with him" test. He'd be on transmit all night. I'd be looking at my watch after half a pint.