UKH

Gary has been in the news recently because some other BBC staff have moaned about his constant political tweets (hugely in favour of remain) that they would not be allowed to do. The accusation is of double standards at the BBC.

He is the BBCs highest paid presenter and has appeared on stage at a rally calling for a second referendum.

The BBC say that as he is not involved with news or politics, they do not care what he tweets in his spare time, and also he is a freelancer and not a direct employee. But other employees say they are turning a blind eye to their star

So, this begs the question how would the BBC react if he was constantly tweeting pro Brexit anti EU propaganda and appearing on stage at "Leave means Leave" rallies ? Would they be so sanguine or would they ask him to stop?

Why does this beg that question at all?

I suppose he just goes some small way to balancing the BBC’s politicos. 

Well it did to me. What do you think? They (the BBC) would care or not? It's all hypothetical

I think that was a point about the meaning of question begging.

I don't know, and it's a reasonable question.  However, given that leavers, remainers, tories, Corbynites the SNP etc all think the BBC is biased against them, I'd say on balance their neutrality is pretty good across the piece.

Fair enough I should have said raises the question...my bad

There was a good article on this recently, as there are actually a few BBC presenters doing this for both sides. They've never stopped non current affairs presenters from expressing opinions but twitter now means they have a much more effective platform where it used to be the odd interview. Liz Kershaw is much lower profile than Lineker, but if they told Lineker to stop it that would apply to Kershaw too. She has a Brexiteer following that would go berserk!

I read the argument as being he is a presenter, not a reporter therefore is entitled to air his private political opinion via his own media platforms.

The original complaint came from Jonathon Agnew, the BBC cricket correspondent. I have always felt that Agnew had a very highly over inflated opinion of himself and this has done nothing to shift that observation. Stick to Cricket Mr Agnew rather than moaning about your BBC colleagues on Twitter.

Where was the article? Can you put a link in here?

Here you go

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/14/bbc-unable-stop-brexit-war-sp...

Thx.

Gary Lineker said last night on SPOTY "Your vote will decide who wins"

interestingly, Lineker probably answers the question I have asked in the OP himself with his response to Jonathan Agnew

"“Thank you so much for your concern, which, I imagine, wouldn’t be a concern at all if you agreed with me.”

Liz Kershaw didn't feature in that article at all, or was that just your own contribution?

Agnew is part of News & Current Affairs, so is bound by the code, Lineker isn’t. Even though the Agnew contribution to the news is reading out cricket scores.

Unsurprisingly, Agnew’s good friend Geoffrey has been quite vocal in his criticism of remainers.

John Arlott and Brian Johnson were well known for expressing their completely opposed political view. Johnson was a vocal supporter of Apartheid South Africa and Arlott described them as a fascist state.

Him, Kunesburg, and Nick whateve his name is, all seem to think it's OK to attack Corbyn

Who seriously gives a toss

I agree, it does seem like bullying; when those people with strong attributes bully those with none, as they aren't capable of defending themselves, it's just no fair. 

If only there were political programmes on tv or radio, which had different politicians on every week etc.. Corbyn would have a chance of national media coverage defending himself.

You make a good point...but apparently it's a good news story...probably something to do with the fact he has 7 million followers so has quite a loud voice

As I remember it, wasn't it more a case of Johnston being a vocal supporter of tours to South Africa during the apartheid era?

Was Tony Lewis the supporter or had some business interests there?

Sorry, I don't know. But I do recall that, along with Denis Healey's, Tony Lewis's eyebrows made a great impression on me as a boy. Not literally, of course.

Still, it's OK to break the rules, because you can't get what you want, eh?

And there's no great furore when they do, or even any consequences.

What rules?

Most r4 comedy programmes entire material is based on take the piss out of the Tories. 

Edit. If Corbyn was actual PM material he'd be capable of fighting his own corner. If ever there was a time when even a mildly talented MP could stand out from the crowd it is now. The field has never been so weak. 

I very rarely really agree with anything you post on here, but when it comes to the leadership talents of JC (as opposed to his apparent intent, which as far as I can tell is largely laudable), then I'm right with you!

Sort of...Dead Ringers has been savaging Corbyn for the last couple of weeks!

No one else?
Not May as well?

Yes, May as well, perhaps more so, but it is not entirely one-sided!

Brexit bulldog, mogg, Boris....

Yes, Diane Abbott does feature occasionally but it is far from excessive. 

So it's not as krikoman suggests then i.e. the BBC and other media are 'picking' on Corbyn?

Strikes me that both Tory and Labour supporters are justified in being critical of Corbyn, so there is no point in trying to ensure balance on that  issue.

The impartiality rules of its news reporters, I'm not talking about Dead Ringers or any other comedy show, I'm talking about the rules for it's news and current affair staff.

The whole balance thing it absolute bollocks anyhow, you have a bloke saying the earth is round, so you have to counter balance that with some flat earth lunatic?

This is how Farage got so much air time for a piddling little party, it's a crazy system.

I suspect you only hear the bits you want. I've always thought that AQ and QT were more far left leaning and gave their participants an easier time. But that I imagine is my own bias. 

Perhaps Corbyn needs to discover main stream national media and engage with the public. Explain his stance on various topics, have his views challenged and see if they can cope with some scrutiny? After all he is 'leader' of the opposition and aspirant prime minister.

If not. The media will keep putting words in his mouth for him.

One of the major problems with Brexit and the BBC in the first place was that they gave equal time to both sides.

Now in theory this was (and always should be) the correct way for the BBC to act.

However it did mean that their investigative reporters were unable to expose the inordinate number of lies and half-truths that were being spouted.

Other outlets were able to be biased without any check.

Kunesburg seems to be doing a good job on May right now. She'll have a go at whoever deserves it - and evidently shows NO political bias.

Yes. Overall, I think the BBC do a remarkably good job of impartiality, and, being fully accountable, will admit it when things aren't quite right.

This was highlighted over climate change when an inordinate amount of time was being given to a tiny and dwindling number of deniers. It was rightly addressed and I imagine that they are now more careful about time reflecting evidence and weight of support.

I think during the 2017 election, Kunesburg particularly struggled to differentiate the between the idea of Corbyn being a fairly irrelevant old lefty and a manifesto that was broadly mainstream social democracy.

I think there was bias, even if it wasn’t conscious. There are very few journalists not doing a job on May right now.

Dead Ringers seems rather fair in their dishing it out. Perhaps a comment on current times that there aren't many politicians who aren't worthy targets of satire, even if it's just that we know so and so is sensible but they are sticking unconvincingly to a bad party line.

Yere, right, because nobody else thought the UK should leave the EU......

I wasn't alluding to leaving the EU, but more about UKIP in the last election, the amount of air-time Farrage and UKIP was massively disproportionate to seats in the house, especially when compared to the Greens and the LibDems.

What about relative to the number of voters?

Plus Corbyn can increase his coverage, just by moving away from preaching to the converted in local halls and engage with national media. 

We don't take that into account do we? It's all about bums on seats, unfortunately.

We? You mean your own personal measure of how badly you think Corbyn is treated in the press? The problem is not how they treat him, it's his complete lack of willingness to be the leader of the opposition, to challenge the Tories, to take his message personally out nationally and not send his side kicks etc.. 

Yes...the fact that Nigel Lawson got airtime was a scandal.