Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Jill Douglas Rugby presenter - has now spoken up for Lineker.

She works for ITV television, and tells of the whole broadcast team talking of little else off air.

Not one sports presenter has spoken against Lineker.
Not one has accepted 40 pieces of silver to take over the anchor role.

Samanfur wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:24 pm Jonathan Pie chips in (NSFW, as usual):

I just love Tom's white-hot rage at Braverman in this video for daring to suggest that her policy represents British values.

More of that, please.

Good thread here. BBC presenter sounds off about refugees. What's the difference? This guy's show is much closer to current affairs than Lineker.

Interesting...

Perhaps I’m being naive here, but isn’t the way out for the BBC rather obvious?

1. Immediately and unconditionally reinstate Gary Lineker.

2. Issue a revised and improved version of their impartialty guidelines that makes it absolutely, and unambiguously, clear that all freelance sports, nature, and other non-current affairs and non-political presenters are free to comment via their own personal social media channels on any political matter on which they may have an opinion. The corporation needs to issue a public statements that all such comments issued on social media are the presenters’ own responsibility, and expressly do not represent the position of the BBC as a corporate entity. This is essentially the position adopted by the Beeb in the recent past in respect of Chris Packham, Mary Berry, Nadiya Hussein, Matthew Syed, and yes, even Andrew Neil. Anyone employed on the same basis as Neil in future, however(Kuenssberg?) as a politics presenter would need to be bound strictly by the impartiality guidelines.

With a degree of hindsight, but quite objectively, attempting to bind a freelance sports presenter like Lineker to rules of impartiality more appropriately intended for and applied to permanent, and in particular political, staff was a quite ridiculous thing to to. The (unintended?) consequences of it have been to expose the extent to which the upper echelons of the BBC have been infiltrated by Conservative Party stooges and placemen, and to cause damage to the BBC as an organisation by giving it the appearance of being controlled by a reactionary right-wing government.

Amateur hour every hour with Tim Davie.

The last time I was watching a media organisation floundering like this, it was News International after the hack of Milly Dowler's phone was revealed. I'm enjoying the floundering of the BBC here almost as much as I enjoyed News International floundering then.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:34 pm Perhaps I’m being naive here, but isn’t the way out for the BBC rather obvious?

1. Immediately and unconditionally reinstate Gary Lineker.

2. Issue a revised and improved version of their impartialty guidelines that makes it absolutely, and unambiguously, clear that all freelance sports, nature, and other non-current affairs and non-political presenters are free to comment via their own personal social media channels on any political matter on which they may have an opinion. The corporation needs to issue a public statements that all such comments issued on social media are the presenters’ own responsibility, and expressly do not represent the position of the BBC as a corporate entity. This is essentially the position adopted by the Beeb in the recent past in respect of Chris Packham, Mary Berry, Nadiya Hussein, Matthew Syed, and yes, even Andrew Neil. Anyone employed on the same basis as Neil in future, however(Kuenssberg?) as a politics presenter would need to be bound strictly by the impartiality guidelines.

With a degree of hindsight, but quite objectively, attempting to bind a freelance sports presenter like Lineker to rules of impartiality more appropriately intended for and applied to permanent, and in particular political, staff was a quite ridiculous thing to to. The (unintended?) consequences of it have been to expose the extent to which the upper echelons of the BBC have been infiltrated by Conservative Party stooges and placemen, and to cause damage to the BBC as an organisation by giving it the appearance of being controlled by a reactionary right-wing government.

Yeah, I think that would be entirely fair.

I understand the BBC are so deep in the shit that they've approached big Sam.

Hmm, we'll see. Sharp can probably live with making the BBC look bad. Maybe Bozo will call him up and tell him to take one for the team.

Lineker is back on, and they’ve announced a review.

As we draw the curtain down on another episode of "Culture wars monthly", let's reflect.

Shit like this isn't effective




Stuff like this is.

Whilst I applaud the effort and creativity and intent, lord God please save me from sitting next to that family, anywhere.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:32 pm Whilst I applaud the effort and creativity and intent, lord God please save me from sitting next to that family, anywhere.

Like. A million times Like. I can well imagine the father rehearsing them eight hours a day and caning in the name of the Lord.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:32 pm Whilst I applaud the effort and creativity and intent, lord God please save me from sitting next to that family, anywhere.

That's a good thing about the Internet.
You can experience their work, and then switch them off.

I'm anticipating reading about the rebellion of the wife and kids.
Shit's gonna get messy.

davidjay wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 1:16 pm I can well imagine the father rehearsing them eight hours a day and caning in the name of the Lord.

Dirty boy, you'll go blind.

A lot of "stepping back" among BBC presenters.

Fiona Bruce to step back from Refuge after 'storm' over Stanley Johnson remark on Question Time


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64942726

BBC Question Time host Fiona Bruce says she will step back from her role as an ambassador for the domestic violence charity Refuge, following a comment she made on air about Stanley Johnson.

Bruce has been accused of trivialising domestic violence during a discussion about Johnson on last week's show.

In a statement, Bruce said she will be leaving her role "with real sadness".

She added that her words has been "mischaracterised" in a "social media storm".

TBF she was in a very difficult situation. If she didn't "clarify" the comments on Stanley Johnson, she could have left the programme open to legal action by the old fucker. Possibly taken off air.

That said, she could have done so without downplaying it quite as much.

“Stepping back” is the new “stepping down”.

So, the BBC is now to open up its impartiality procedures to an independent review.

Who in their right mind would take that gig unless they are so remote from the corporation that they essentially don't know what they are doing, (and therefore can't immediately be accused of bias) and/or are quite accustomed to round-the-clock security?

This one has "retired judge, 12 months, and bazillions of fees" written all over it. And not, I think we can safely say, Sue Gray.