STEPHEN GLOVER: It makes my blood boil to see the BBC gang up with Gary Lineker against a brave journalist who dared to call him out
During the 1930s, those who were perceived to be enemies of Stalin’s oppressive Soviet regime were sometimes required to make public apologies and abase themselves in front of the brutal dictator.
It may surprise some readers to learn that the humiliating ritual has been revived in 21st-century Britain by no less an institution than the dear old BBC.
Granted, those forced to grovel are not now led out to be executed, as was the custom in the Soviet Union. However, in other respects the procedure is spookily similar. The role of Stalin — the man who must not be offended — is played by Match Of The Day pundit, and the BBC’s highest paid star, Gary Lineker.
About a week ago, Neil Henderson, a veteran BBC journalist who is a home and foreign news editor, dared to criticise Mr Lineker after the presenter had tweeted to his 8.5 million followers: ‘As a politician, how could you ever, under any circumstances, bring yourself to vote for pumping sewage into our seas. Unfathomable.’
The role of Stalin — the man who must not be offended — is played by Match Of The Day pundit, and the BBC’s highest paid star, Gary Lineker
Many may agree with Mr Lineker. How much better it would be if untreated effluent were not allowed to spew onto our beaches, though it should be said that this nasty practice has long been sanctioned by politicians of both parties.
Mr Henderson’s quarrel, however, was not with the pundit’s views. He simply did not believe that, as a leading figure on the Beeb, Mr Lineker should be permitted to ventilate his opinions. Auntie is supposed to be impartial.
Perhaps Mr Henderson recalled how the incoming director general, Tim Davie, had declared in September 2020: ‘If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC.’
No doubt Neil Henderson also remembered the anti-Brexit tweets and other political observations (often anti-Tory) that have in the past slipped their moorings in Mr Lineker’s mind, and found their way onto his extremely active Twitter page.
About a week ago, Neil Henderson, a veteran BBC journalist who is a home and foreign news editor, dared to criticise Mr Lineker
So Mr Henderson bravely reminded Auntie’s Pride and Joy (who pocketed £1.35 million of licence payers’ money last year) that ‘the BBC lives or dies by its impartiality. If you can’t abide it, get off it.’
Gary was not amused. He struck back on Twitter, asserting in an exchange with Mr Henderson that, as he does not work for news and current affairs, he isn’t bound by the BBC’s strict impartiality rules.
Back in 2018, the magnifico loftily dismissed similar criticisms made by the BBC’s cricket correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, who, although a Remainer, believed that Mr Lineker’s diatribes against Brexit broke the Beeb’s rules.
It is surely beyond dispute that Neil Henderson was in the right. Nonetheless, he has been forced by the BBC to make a public apology. As a relatively obscure though highly respected journalist, he had done the one thing that is not permissible. He criticised the Great Gary!
On Tuesday, Mr Henderson submitted himself to the public self-laceration that will be familiar to students of Stalin’s show trials. ‘I’d like to apologise for earlier tweets . . . I should have shown more consideration to a BBC colleague — as per the BBC’s social media guidelines.’
He (Mr Henderson) simply did not believe that, as a leading figure on the Beeb, Mr Lineker should be permitted to ventilate his opinions
What?! I suggest that most reasonable people will think that if anyone has broken BBC guidelines, it was the overpaid and self-righteous presenter of Match Of The Day, not Mr Henderson, who will be lucky if he receives a fraction of Mr Lineker’s salary. But no. Auntie thinks otherwise.
Now we could choose to dismiss this episode as a trivial squabble. In the end, who really cares about Mr Lineker’s politically minded tweets, which are invariably shallow and often ignorant?
For example, on the day that Russia invaded Ukraine a few thoughts stirred in Gary’s mind, and he tweeted: ‘All those trillions spent on a so-called nuclear deterrent. Madness.’ Better informed people pointed out that, had Ukraine been a nuclear power, as it was until 1994, Putin might have thought twice before invading it. Mr Lineker subsequently deleted the tweet.
Yes, it is tempting simply to dismiss the garrulous pundit with an indulgent smile and advise him gently to concentrate on what he knows, and about which he is very well-informed — football.
But it seems to me that there are important issues here. Our national broadcaster has sided with Goliath against David, and in doing so has displayed both a skewed logic and a kind of warped morality.
It goes without saying that Mr Lineker should be required to observe the impartiality rules that apply to everyone else who works at the BBC. Only yesterday, it was reported that Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine has been reprimanded by Auntie for tweeting in favour of controversial low-traffic neighbourhoods.
A year ago, BBC2’s Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis had her knuckles rapped by executives for sharing a tweet which criticised the Government’s response to the pandemic
Mr Vine is an avid cyclist, and as such he has used Twitter to champion the cause of cyclists against the interests of motorists. As he is a senior BBC employee who is expected to show balance, it is right that he should have been censured.
In the past, the Beeb has frequently found fault with stars who have demonstrated bias on social media. A year ago, BBC2’s Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis had her knuckles rapped by executives for sharing a tweet which criticised the Government’s response to the pandemic.
Not that Maitlis (who has recently left the BBC) learnt much from her experience. Earlier this year, she re-circulated a tweet from Boris-hating former Tory MP Rory Stewart about the ‘sheer tawdry Trumpian shabbiness’ of No 10.
For all that, the BBC generally takes a robust line on politically biased tweets from its presenters. That is surely right and proper, though whether Auntie comes down so hard on instances of partiality in its coverage is, of course, highly debatable.
Why should Gary Lineker be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else? It’s true that he doesn’t work in news and current affairs, but that is beside the point since he has set himself up as a political sage. The BBC has given him a pulpit, and he uses it to disseminate his sometimes contentious views.
Earlier this year, she re-circulated a tweet from Boris-hating former Tory MP Rory Stewart about the ‘sheer tawdry Trumpian shabbiness’ of No 10
Nor does the justification used by him in the past, namely that he is a freelance, carry any weight. So what? He may not be a full-time employee — which only emphasises the grotesqueness of his inflated salary — but he is seen by his audience as representing the BBC.
In my perfect world, no senior member of the BBC’s staff would be allowed to tweet since social media are by their very nature disputatious, and liable to lead even circumspect people into controversy. But I accept that social media are now so widespread that it would probably be difficult for Auntie to apply a general ban.
If the Corporation permits those who work for it to use social media, everyone must obey the same rules. Gary Lineker’s political tweets may be silly and inconsequential but, uniquely indulged as he is by the BBC, they amount to a vexatious abuse of power.
It makes my blood boil that our national broadcaster, which we expect to behave in a moral way, should gang up with its powerful, pampered and rule-breaking star against a decent journalist whose only mistake has been to speak the truth.
Source: Read Full Article
