Footy broadcasting - What do we have?

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
21,493
Philadelphia

fletcherpost

sosh's feckin' poet laureate
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,292
Glasgow, Scotland
View: https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1634302297416118275?s=20


NEW: BBC confirms that none of their Match of the Day presenting team will do tomorrow night’s show: “We understand their position and we have decided that the programme will focus on match action without studio presentation or punditry.”

Never heard of this happening before at the BBC. But Lineker is very popular with his colleagues and has been presenting MOTD for ages. The Beeb's been under fire for a while now regarding dodgy links to the Tory party.
 

CodPiece XL

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2007
2,166
Scottsdale, AZ.
As someone who watches MOTD to catch up on the days EPL highlights, I always find myself fast forwarding all the pundit back and forth between the games. I’m kind of looking forward to seeing the different format tomorrow night, my remote won’t be as busy. I’ll be curious to see what the viewing figures are. Just reading the UK press, on one side you have people claiming he is MOTD, on the other side people are saying good riddance.
 

CodPiece XL

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2007
2,166
Scottsdale, AZ.
Now I’m reading reports that BBC commentators MAY be boycotting the games tomorrow. I suppose the studio production crew could jump on the bandwagon as well.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,041
A Lost Time
I don't think BBC's position is entirely without merit. It's easy to sympathize with Lineker's position. But one issue I see is that BBC wants to protect its reputation for political neutrality and the other that if you allow Lineker to freely express a controversial position and engage in day to day politics, this opens the door for other BBC personalities to do so and you give them leverage to run roughshod over the institution. Right now, you may like what Lineker stands for, but in the future you may come to appreciate BBC's stance a bit more when it's a cacophony of voices riding on its brand name expressing whatever opinion they feel like.
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,040
UK
I don't think BBC's position is entirely without merit. It's easy to sympathize with Lineker's position. But one issue I see is that BBC wants to protect its reputation for political neutrality and the other that if you allow Lineker to freely express a controversial position and engage in day to day politics, this opens the door for other BBC personalities to do so and you give them leverage to run roughshod over the institution. Right now, you may like what Lineker stands for, but in the future you may come to appreciate BBC's stance a bit more when it's a cacophony of voices riding on its brand name expressing whatever opinion they feel like.
I'm very much Team Lineker here. Public service broadcasting impartiality rules only bind BBC employees involved in news and current affairs content. For example, while appearing in a popular BBC sitcom during the 2000s, actress Joanna Lumley was the public face of a campaign to allow Nepalese soldiers who'd served in the British Army to settle in the UK. The beeb also used to show a politics magazine show with Diane Abbott (roughly: British AOC) and Michael Portillo (roughly: British Mitt Romney) as recurring panelists. Andrew Neil, who presented that show and was the BBC's political editor and then their top political interviewer for years, was an extremely vocal supporter of the Bush/Blair wars, and called a newspaper critical of them "The Daily Terrorist" without censure.

It frequently shows comedians who have made direct criticisms of the governments of the day. John Peel was on the radio for decades and everyone knew he was a socialist.

What seems different here is the government has come out and criticised the individual for criticising its policy, and the BBC has pulled him, which seems pretty chilling.
 

fletcherpost

sosh's feckin' poet laureate
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,292
Glasgow, Scotland
I don't think BBC's position is entirely without merit. It's easy to sympathize with Lineker's position. But one issue I see is that BBC wants to protect its reputation for political neutrality and the other that if you allow Lineker to freely express a controversial position and engage in day to day politics, this opens the door for other BBC personalities to do so and you give them leverage to run roughshod over the institution. Right now, you may like what Lineker stands for, but in the future you may come to appreciate BBC's stance a bit more when it's a cacophony of voices riding on its brand name expressing whatever opinion they feel like.
The BBC is not politically neutral. They say they are but they're not. You just need ot watch how Fiona Bruce Presents Question Time the flagshib BBC political show to know something is rotten in TV Centre. Nich Robinson was also a card carrying Tory and he was Chief Politcal Correspondent.

Also hoist of the Apprentice and ex Spurs Chairman Alan Sugar is not shy of puttng out a political tweet...he's a Tory too.
 
Last edited:

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,425
I don't think BBC's position is entirely without merit. It's easy to sympathize with Lineker's position. But one issue I see is that BBC wants to protect its reputation for political neutrality and the other that if you allow Lineker to freely express a controversial position and engage in day to day politics, this opens the door for other BBC personalities to do so and you give them leverage to run roughshod over the institution. Right now, you may like what Lineker stands for, but in the future you may come to appreciate BBC's stance a bit more when it's a cacophony of voices riding on its brand name expressing whatever opinion they feel like.
They seemed to be fine with Lineker criticizing Qatar during the World Cup, but this is over the line?