Discussion
I don't think I see too many people putting him on a pedestal here.
I do see people saying he appears to have done more to help refugees than a lot of people have which suggests that even if you don't agree with him he's genuine rather than it being part of some elaborate tax wheeze.
When you're reduced to digging around on Google to try to find out where the refugees he helped came from just so you can try to discredit him for somehow helping the wrong type of refugees or not doing enough because he only housed two it's probably time to have a little look in the mirror and ask yourself how you ended up that person.
I do see people saying he appears to have done more to help refugees than a lot of people have which suggests that even if you don't agree with him he's genuine rather than it being part of some elaborate tax wheeze.
When you're reduced to digging around on Google to try to find out where the refugees he helped came from just so you can try to discredit him for somehow helping the wrong type of refugees or not doing enough because he only housed two it's probably time to have a little look in the mirror and ask yourself how you ended up that person.
Gweeds said:
crankedup5 said:
Strange, I haven’t set out to change anybodies mindset, why would I want or need to do that when my elected Government has the issue as a manifesto promise?
13 years of inaction and still lapping it up. Good grief.
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
monthou said:
crankedup5 said:
You’re certainly not winning me over to your side of this division, and that is what matters isn’t it ?
How many minds do you think you've changed?https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan
Gweeds said:
crankedup5 said:
Strange, I haven’t set out to change anybodies mindset, why would I want or need to do that when my elected Government has the issue as a manifesto promise?
13 years of inaction and still lapping it up. Good grief.
So if anything the current Tory policy is directly contradicts the manifesto promises.
crankedup5 said:
Gary will be chuffed to know that he has a few people supporting him in PH. 
Meanwhile back the real World our Home Secretary gets on with the work required and promises the Rwanda policy will be up and running by this Summer. We shall see soon enough.
Unlikely. Meanwhile back the real World our Home Secretary gets on with the work required and promises the Rwanda policy will be up and running by this Summer. We shall see soon enough.
They'll continue to make plans that violate international legal obligations in such as way as the whole thing gets bogged down in legal challenges until around May 2024...
... at which point they'll fight an election on the migration 'crises' and trans people.
Because they've got f
k all else to campaign on. I think Lineker is a good football pundit. A million quid + worth of football pundit though? Not for me, but if that is what the market rate is then fair enough.
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory. It's not really acceptable, nor is it particularly accurate imho - That assessment applies to Lineker, regardless of his job as a football pundit. I'd still disagree with his position on this subject if he were just a bloke down the pub.
The question is should he be allowed to display his political leanings so overtly as a BBC presenter? After all Lineker is just a football pundit, he is not the guy in charge of editing or presenting the Today program or the 6 o'clock news.
Nevertheless incidents like this resonate with those who claim that BBC employees and contractors have an inherent anti Government and/or political bias, and whilst the BBC is struggling over questions of bias and partiality in its ranks it's clear that the management are not going to be happy when their highest paid presenter jumps feet first into the political fray like this.
Whether one accepts the claims of bias to not, it IS clear that the BBC has 'positions' on key subjects and stories are presented in the context of those positions. Of course one does not see that context if one agrees with the position taken, but to others that context in itself represents inherent bias.
So is eliminating bias at the BBC and amongst its presenters/editors/employees even possible?
I'd say probably not. People waffle on about being professional and leaving ones beliefs at the front door, but the number of people who can genuinely do that is quite small. The BBC employs more than 20,000 people so it's unlikely that everyone is THAT professional. If we accept that, then is it not more dangerous/dishonest for the BBC to claim that the organisation is unbiased and in turn to seek to command the status and trust that genuine impartiality brings?
The reality is that the BBC has positions, it's employees and contractors have positions, so is it not better that we, the viewers, understand those positions and and filter the BBC output accordingly?
In fact, it might be helpful if all BBC on screen and editorial staff were more open and more vocal about their political affiliations and beliefs. At least that way we might avoid the desperate arguments about the BBC supposedly being 'balanced' when it simply isn't and hasn't really ever been.
People can then listen to any report/comment/opinion being expressed by BBC staff (and contractors) on the basis of a better understanding of the starting position of whoever is expressing that report/comment/opinion. It's a bit like selecting your daily newspaper. You purchase the Guardian knowing it will have a particular take on a story, whilst you might purchase the Telegraph for a somewhat different view of that same story. One knows what one is buying in that sense, and we pay for the BBC service, so what's the problem? What we have now at the BBC is supposedly authoritative journalism predicated an assumption that it's supposed to be neither Guardian nor Telegraph, when the truth is rather different.
So, back to Lineker: Good on him for taking some people in. I don't know if it's tokenism or not, but there's no getting away from the fact that he's done more than most other folk have done. Personally, I think he should be able to say what he likes (within societal norms). If in doing so he alienates a chunk of his audience and viewing figures for MoTD drop significantly then the BBC can decide whether or not it wants to replace him. If however his ratings improve as a result of his public statements then the BBC can reward him with a new contract.
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory. It's not really acceptable, nor is it particularly accurate imho - That assessment applies to Lineker, regardless of his job as a football pundit. I'd still disagree with his position on this subject if he were just a bloke down the pub.
The question is should he be allowed to display his political leanings so overtly as a BBC presenter? After all Lineker is just a football pundit, he is not the guy in charge of editing or presenting the Today program or the 6 o'clock news.
Nevertheless incidents like this resonate with those who claim that BBC employees and contractors have an inherent anti Government and/or political bias, and whilst the BBC is struggling over questions of bias and partiality in its ranks it's clear that the management are not going to be happy when their highest paid presenter jumps feet first into the political fray like this.
Whether one accepts the claims of bias to not, it IS clear that the BBC has 'positions' on key subjects and stories are presented in the context of those positions. Of course one does not see that context if one agrees with the position taken, but to others that context in itself represents inherent bias.
So is eliminating bias at the BBC and amongst its presenters/editors/employees even possible?
I'd say probably not. People waffle on about being professional and leaving ones beliefs at the front door, but the number of people who can genuinely do that is quite small. The BBC employs more than 20,000 people so it's unlikely that everyone is THAT professional. If we accept that, then is it not more dangerous/dishonest for the BBC to claim that the organisation is unbiased and in turn to seek to command the status and trust that genuine impartiality brings?
The reality is that the BBC has positions, it's employees and contractors have positions, so is it not better that we, the viewers, understand those positions and and filter the BBC output accordingly?
In fact, it might be helpful if all BBC on screen and editorial staff were more open and more vocal about their political affiliations and beliefs. At least that way we might avoid the desperate arguments about the BBC supposedly being 'balanced' when it simply isn't and hasn't really ever been.
People can then listen to any report/comment/opinion being expressed by BBC staff (and contractors) on the basis of a better understanding of the starting position of whoever is expressing that report/comment/opinion. It's a bit like selecting your daily newspaper. You purchase the Guardian knowing it will have a particular take on a story, whilst you might purchase the Telegraph for a somewhat different view of that same story. One knows what one is buying in that sense, and we pay for the BBC service, so what's the problem? What we have now at the BBC is supposedly authoritative journalism predicated an assumption that it's supposed to be neither Guardian nor Telegraph, when the truth is rather different.
So, back to Lineker: Good on him for taking some people in. I don't know if it's tokenism or not, but there's no getting away from the fact that he's done more than most other folk have done. Personally, I think he should be able to say what he likes (within societal norms). If in doing so he alienates a chunk of his audience and viewing figures for MoTD drop significantly then the BBC can decide whether or not it wants to replace him. If however his ratings improve as a result of his public statements then the BBC can reward him with a new contract.
andymadmak said:
So, back to Lineker: Good on him for taking some people in. I don't know if it's tokenism or not, but there's no getting away from the fact that he's done more than most other folk have done. Personally, I think he should be able to say what he likes (within societal norms). If in doing so he alienates a chunk of his audience and viewing figures for MoTD drop significantly then the BBC can decide whether or not it wants to replace him. If however his ratings improve as a result of his public statements then the BBC can reward him with a new contract.
+1andymadmak said:
So is eliminating bias at the BBC and amongst its presenters/editors/employees even possible?
I'd say probably not.
I'd also say probably not, when, as you now know, there are Conservative placemen right at the top of the BBC and Conservative loyalists on the political news team.I'd say probably not.
It does explain the easy ride the government have received these last few years.
BOR said:
andymadmak said:
So is eliminating bias at the BBC and amongst its presenters/editors/employees even possible?
I'd say probably not.
I'd also say probably not, when, as you now know, there are Conservative placemen right at the top of the BBC and Conservative loyalists on the political news team.I'd say probably not.
It does explain the easy ride the government have received these last few years.
Gweeds said:
crankedup5 said:
An incredibly weak counter, says one thing only about the poster.
Yes - it says I have eyes and can see. You should try it. Those scales might fall from your eyes.andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory.
Actually, it's spot-on. What was being said and put about in (say) 1930-33 in Germany regarding certain groups of people was not that dissimilar to what is being said today here in the UK about certain groups of people. In fact, you should read what people were saying in the UK in the 1930s about certain groups of people.It always starts small.
andymadmak said:
I didn’t mention the political parties specifically. No doubt you were equally critical when Labour supporters held similar positions…
Which ones would those be? I would be genuinely interested to know if there has ever been such overtly political appointments at that level of the BBC.Eric Mc said:
andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory.
Actually, it's spot-on. What was being said and put about in (say) 1930-33 in Germany regarding certain groups of people was not that dissimilar to what is being said today here in the UK about certain groups of people. In fact, you should read what people were saying in the UK in the 1930s about certain groups of people.It always starts small.
crankedup5 said:
Gweeds said:
crankedup5 said:
Strange, I haven’t set out to change anybodies mindset, why would I want or need to do that when my elected Government has the issue as a manifesto promise?
13 years of inaction and still lapping it up. Good grief.
Eric Mc said:
andymadmak said:
Let's start with the simple bit: Anyone making public references to 1930s Germany when talking about UK Government policy is being inflammatory.
Actually, it's spot-on. What was being said and put about in (say) 1930-33 in Germany regarding certain groups of people was not that dissimilar to what is being said today here in the UK about certain groups of people. In fact, you should read what people were saying in the UK in the 1930s about certain groups of people.It always starts small.
HM-2 said:
crankedup5 said:
Gweeds said:
crankedup5 said:
Strange, I haven’t set out to change anybodies mindset, why would I want or need to do that when my elected Government has the issue as a manifesto promise?
13 years of inaction and still lapping it up. Good grief.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff