Balance within the BBC

[CallMePaul]

I am shocked that an aside that sacking an outspoken presenter would have saved more than the axeing of the BBC Singers has generated so much controversy from a left-wing viewpoint. I have avoided commenting in political threads on this forum as I thought that it was to discuss mattters relevant to Radio3 content and related topics. However, for the record, I have been a member of the Conservative Party on-and-off since my early 20s (I am now in my early 70s) and hsave contested local elections as a Conservative in 3 cities over that period, most recently in Manchester in 2018. Of course I respect the democratic values of this country and the right of others to disagree with me. I will now refrain from further political comment on this forum and confine my remarks to musical and cultural matters.

[edashtav]

It's the proposals that are outrageous, not his comments.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Maybe it's worth adding: Lineker and Neil were obviously speaking/writing on their own behalf and not on that of the BBC, which makes their cases a little different from those of Attenborough, Bruce and Sugar which have clearly taken place within a BBC context.

As no one has seen the Attenborough documentary how are supposed to know what he has done ? The BBC’s social media guidelines apply whether you are freelance or staff and you only get a tiny bit more latitude on your own social account than you do if broadcasting. If you work in news you get no more latitude.When you had to try and explain that to staff they literally couldn’t get their heads round it . I used to have to do this stuff . God I’m glad it’s over …

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/10/david-attenborough-bbc-wild-isles-episode-rightwing-backlash-fears

[teamsaint]

There wasn’t much balance on the BBC news in 2020 /2021 either. Nothing very new here.

We should ask a few sacked care workers how impartial the BBC and wider media were, and how far they held govt to account over the disastrously damaging mandate policy.

The solution to this is in unity. But that means admitting where mistakes were made….across the board. The govt are plainly at fault here, as are the BBC leadership, but others are culpable for the situation we have come to.

[oddoneout]

It’s amazing the number of people who do think the BBC is the State broadcaster. Even MP’s…
Think he had to go . In my own tiny way I used to have to enforce this social media policy , although in my area the rules were lot tighter, it’s pretty clear that’s he’s broken them .Thing is of course is that they are well nigh unenforceable and less high profile people are breaking them day after day . I think he might have got away with it without the German reference - that seems to have annoyed quite a few Jewish people who probably otherwise agree with the general thrust of his remarks.
I see Ian Wright has pulled out of MOTD in solidarity. This could get very messy…

PS I agree with you about Neil.

As far as I can make out the original Germany reference was to language used in that country in the 1930s, not to actions, and comments I have read subsequently support his view as factually correct. Braverman flying off the handle with Holocaust references was very wide of the mark.
The BBC is in a no-win situation here I think. They have their own guidelines and rules to navigate, compounded by the apparent need to avoid anyone associated with the Corporation voicing any criticism of the government. The latter may not actually be the case, but I doubt I am the only one to get that impression from looking at events, and what appear to be considerable inconsistencies.
Perhaps the government should ban football - it seems to produce people who disagree publicly and influentially with government activities...

[oddoneout]

Maybe it's worth adding: Lineker and Neil were obviously speaking/writing on their own behalf and not on that of the BBC, which makes their cases a little different from those of Attenborough, Bruce and Sugar which have clearly taken place within a BBC context.

Isn't the Attenborough issue to do with the WWF and RSPB being given a BBC platform in that final film to voice views(propaganda in some eyes) that might annoy influential/important persons and groups? And they are being allowed to do so without "the other side" (put forward presumably by the annoyed ones)being shown, ie it isn't balanced.
Whatever the reasons, it isn't a good look as they say. Mind you it's a good way to make sure a great many folk do watch the otherwise missing episode.

[french frank]

The BBC is in a no-win situation here I think. They have their own guidelines and rules to navigate, compounded by the apparent need to avoid anyone associated with the Corporation voicing any criticism of the government.

Purely for the record §4.1 of the BBC's own editorial guidelines says:

"The external activities and public comments, for example on social media, of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality. Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest."

The conflicts of interest are mainly to do with commercial/financial matters (naughty things like offering help or advice to a serving prime minister, I imagine). But Conflicts of Interest cover "public expressions of opinion".

§15.3.13 under public expressions of opinions:

"The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts."

So a 'lower risk', but still a risk.

[jayne lee wilson]

Can't take my eyes off Sky News, who (unlike BBC News) are staying with the story - as they should. High entertainment!

So far, Shearer, Wright, Micah Richards, John Barnes and Alex Scott have all supported Lineker. Would any high profile sportswoman or man now want to appear on MotD? Probably not, more likely others will join and follow..... so what the BBC will do about the program, and this whole story, is becoming more politically enjoyable by the hour!
Alistair Cambpell was great knockabout value just now - Sky gave him the freedom to hit hard at any rightwing Tory targets he chose. Splendid rant.

I guess they could present each match with titles and captions instead. (Or maybe a football mascot or cartoon character...that would be great fun, but they wouldn't have the nerve; Nadine Dorries would be furious....Speaking of cartoon characters...). The R4 Any Questions presenter (due on air at 20:00) will have an, er, interesting "balance" to maintain. The next instalment in a very compelling sequence.

Sometimes a seeming-trivial media event can have resonance way beyond.... those Tories celebrating a few hours back may find their low-dive joy very short-lived....

[Ein Heldenleben]

Can't take my eyes off Sky News, who (unlike BBC News) are staying with the story - as they should. High entertainment!

So far, Shearer, Wright, Micah Richards, John Barnes and Alex Scott have all supported Lineker. Would any high profile sportswoman or man now want to appear on MotD? Probably not, more likely others will join and follow..... so what the BBC will do about the program, and this whole story, is becoming more politically enjoyable by the hour!
Alistair Cambpell was great knockabout value just now - Sky gave him the freedom to hit hard at any rightwing Tory targets he chose. Splendid rant.

I guess they could present each match with titles and captions instead. (Or maybe a football mascot or cartoon character...that would be great fun, but they wouldn't have the nerve; Nadine Dorries would be furious....Speaking of cartoon characters...). The R4 Any Questions presenter (due on air at 20:00) will have an, er, interesting "balance" to maintain. The next instalment in a very compelling sequence.

Sometimes a seeming-trivial media event can have resonance way beyond.... those Tories celebrating a few hours back may find their low-dive joy very short-lived....

Alistair Campbell - the man who inflicted more damage on the BBC than just about any other non elected politician I can think of.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Purely for the record §4.1 of the BBC's own editorial guidelines says:

"The external activities and public comments, for example on social media, of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality. Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest."

The conflicts of interest are mainly to do with commercial/financial matters (naughty things like offering help or advice to a serving prime minister, I imagine). But Conflicts of Interest cover "public expressions of opinion".

§15.3.13 under public expressions of opinions:

"The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts."

So a 'lower risk', but still a risk.

Not stated in the guidelines but the other point is the higher the public profile the greater the risk of damaging perceptions in and around the BBC’s independence. As an ex colleague said to me today there’s a small group of managers trying to stop a tidal wave of presenters and employees doing all sorts of things on social media (chiefly expressing opinions ) without realising the public think it’s the BBC saying that. Quite a few people would try and work round things by saying “views my own , not BBC’s “ all that meant was that if they were really obscure any Fleet Street journo doing a search could instantly confirm they were staff.

[teamsaint]

Alistair Campbell - the man who inflicted more damage on the BBC than just about any other non elected politician I can think of.

And of course not just the BBC.

We are learning the hard way about the need to work together protect our freedoms.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Isn't the Attenborough issue to do with the WWF and RSPB being given a BBC platform in that final film to voice views(propaganda in some eyes) that might annoy influential/important persons and groups? And they are being allowed to do so without "the other side" (put forward presumably by the annoyed ones)being shown, ie it isn't balanced.
Whatever the reasons, it isn't a good look as they say. Mind you it's a good way to make sure a great many folk do watch the otherwise missing episode.

We don’t know because no one has seen it.

[french frank]

Isn't the Attenborough issue to do with the WWF and RSPB being given a BBC platform in that final film to voice views(propaganda in some eyes) that might annoy influential/important persons and groups? And they are being allowed to do so without "the other side" (put forward presumably by the annoyed ones)being shown, ie it isn't balanced.
Whatever the reasons, it isn't a good look as they say. Mind you it's a good way to make sure a great many folk do watch the otherwise missing episode.

We don’t know because no one has seen it.

Isn't this where the concept of "due impartiality" comes in? I wonder what points of view could be made by WWF and RSPB that are soooo 'controversial' that they have to be countered with the opposing view to avoid a "right-wing backlash"?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Isn't this where the concept of "due impartiality" comes in? I wonder what points of view could be made by WWF and RSPB that are soooo 'controversial' that they have to be countered with the opposing view to avoid a "right-wing backlash"?

Exactly . There is no debate about the impact of modern intensive farming methods on the environment - it’s recognised by the NFU for example. There is however a big debate on rewilding and the taking of land out of production and its impact on food security . Many farmers are very active conservationists and many environmentalists realise they need to work with farmers to get quality , affordable food whilst protecting fragile nature. I can almost guarantee this will be the conclusion of this unseen and probably very uncontroversial film. If it does put the boot into farming I shall be be very surprised.

[oddoneout]

Bit more here about the Attenborough issue

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/10/david-attenborough-bbc-wild-isles-episode-rightwing-backlash-fears

I just wonder why, if the 6th film wasn't part of the series as the BBC statement says, it got linked in the first place. There are two different narratives though, and the alternative one is that it was realised/feared that there might be adverse reactions and so it was hived off.
Lack of consistency doesn't help matters in such situations.