Cancel culture at the BBC

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

All six were made by Silverback Films, not the BBC. There are different statements on why the extra episode is not being shown on a linear channel. From The Guardian "Senior sources at the BBC told the Guardian that the decision not to show the sixth episode was made to fend off potential critique from the political right." The BBC denies this.

Not sure why the Chairman of the BBC needs to hold the same political views as the Prime Minister. Surely you pick the best person for the job, not ask your mates down the pub who's up for it?

The "sixth" episode was NOT commissioned by the BBC. Sounds like the "episode" it's purely opinion.


Not necessarily to do with political views, but somebody you know. There's no job advert with interviews etc. They still have to be approved by Parliament and the Privy Council.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The "sixth" episode was NOT commissioned by the BBC. Sounds like the "episode" it's purely opinion.


Not necessarily to do with political views, but somebody you know. There's no job advert with interviews etc. They still have to be approved by Parliament and the Privy Council.

https://publicappointments.cabinetof...rporation-bbc/

Wild Isles is a five part series commissioned by the BBC and made by Silverback Films.

Saving our Wild Isles is a one-episode film commissioned by the RSPB and WWF and made by Silverback Films.

RSPB/WWF commissioned their film because they knew Silverback were making a series for the BBC and wanted a piece that would pick up on the issues raised in the series and become the basis for their campaigning.

The BBC later purchased the rights to show Saving Our Wild Isles. It has opted to put it on the iPlayer and not broadcast it a week after Wild Isles concludes.

Thus far are the facts. Why they have done this … well, discuss …

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Yet more nonsense. It was a political appointment, so you are going to choose somebody you know.
No episode has been banned. They only made 5. The "sixth" was NOT made by the BBC and is going to be made available on iPlayer anyway.
Plenty of examples of where nature programmes have highlighted damage caused by "invasive alien species".

Well you'd know about nonsense considering I never said it was banned

And what a banal explanation in attempting to dismiss the worst sort of cronyism to boot

---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Not necessarily to do with political views, but somebody you know. There's no job advert with interviews etc. They still have to be approved by Parliament and the Privy Council.

The people that say because of his omissions they couldn't scrutinise his appointment properly...

Originally Posted by Hugh

Remember when Andrew Neil, who presented the political programmes Sunday Politics and This Week on BBC One, Daily Politics & Politics Live on BBC2, sometimes hosted Newsnight on BBC2, The Andrew Neil Interviews on BBC1, all whilst posting outspoken political opinions in the Spectator, various newspapers, and Twitter, was pulled up for breaching the BBC Impartiality Rules?

No, me neither…

In fact, when someone complained about his posts on Twitter to the BBC, this was the reply (just over two years ago).



Here’s another one about when someone complained about Chris Packham’s tweets (Countryfile & SpringWatch presenter on the BBC) just under two years ago.



I wonder what has changed since then…



Really opens your eyes, doesn’t it?

[Inactive Digital]

Have I woken up in Russia?
A freelance sports presenter taken off air for criticising the government on an entirely different platform? Sounds more like RT than the BBC.

[1andrew1]

The BBC website posted a video in 2018 "Gary is not involved in any news or political output for the BBC, and as such, any expression of his personal political views, does not affect the BBC's impartiality."
https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/...89134692663296

[Kursk]

Maybe the beeb has cottoned on to him being a bore? His pundit mates will be “taking the knee” next to show solidarity with the great Gary and his fall from grace. Time for a re-think on all of the tiresome footy shows and their endless cliche-spouting non-celebrities.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Maybe the beeb has cottoned on to him being a bore? His pundit mates will be “taking the knee” next to show solidarity with the great Gary and his fall from grace. Time for a re-think on all of the tiresome footy shows and their endless cliche-spouting non-celebrities.

Call me old fashioned but I prefer a bore to a director of news that's guilty of materially misleading the audience, the beeb should cotton on to the fact that their audience is literally dying off year by year and maybe not go out of their way to find ways to alienate large swathes of what's left, maybe that's the plan destroy it by stealth, just like they've done with the nhs

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Maybe the beeb has cottoned on to him being a bore? His pundit mates will be “taking the knee” next to show solidarity with the great Gary and his fall from grace. Time for a re-think on all of the tiresome footy shows and their endless cliche-spouting non-celebrities.

Totally agree.

Maybe this whole thing has been orchestrated so as to get him to resign or dismiss him?

The BBC cuts are now really starting to bite and they may feel that they can no longer afford his obscene salary, but want to make it look like he left of his own accord or that they had no choice but to dismiss him??

If he does go it will help the BBC's finances. He won't starve and will probably be picked up by Sky or elsewhere.

MOTD will be shown tonight without comment or punditry which, from what i've heard, will suit most football fans and save a fortune.

If he does go, you can bet that all those supporting him will be fighting like rats in a sack for his job.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Totally agree.

Maybe this whole thing has been orchestrated so as to get him to resign or dismiss him?

The BBC cuts are now really starting to bite and they may feel that they can no longer afford his obscene salary, but want to make it look like he left of his own accord or that they had no choice but to dismiss him??

If he does go it will help the BBC's finances. He won't starve and will probably be picked up by Sky or elsewhere.

MOTD will be shown tonight without comment or punditry which, from what i've heard, will suit most football fans and save a fortune.

If he does go, you can bet that all those supporting him will be fighting like rats in a sack for his job.

A proposed format so successful that it’s not used for domestic leagues anywhere in the world.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The BBC website posted a video in 2018 "Gary is not involved in any news or political output for the BBC, and as such, any expression of his personal political views, does not affect the BBC's impartiality."

That was 4+ years ago.
As has already been pointed out, things changed under the latest chairman, and all the staff knew this, as Im quite sure did Lineker.

Impartiality is at the heart of Director General Tim Davie's strategy for the corporation, as he has declared many times.

He [Lineker] now seems to thing hes bigger and more important then the BBC or the programme(s) he presents/presented.
I hope they stick to their guns, and he finds out hes not.

The BBC will back down. They've completely screwed this up, if anything whoever made this decision might have to go.

The weird thing is the noise around this had started to die down. A few Tory MPs did the rounds saying he should go and the Daily Mail did a few front pages but after Lineker refused to apologise and it seemed the BBC had decided the matter was closed the attention died down.

Then the BBC went and tried to appease them and ended up alienating everyone else including most of their staff. They've had to pull TV shows and radio programs. There are now rumours the rebellion will extend past the sports on-air talent as well. The BBC might have a full-scale mutiny on their hands for an act of cowardice.

If this goes on much longer I think a lot of the BBC staff might just strike until Richard Sharp goes. The other thing about the suspension was it brought attention to him.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

That was 4+ years ago.
As has already been pointed out, things changed under the latest chairman, and all the staff knew this, as Im quite sure did Lineker.

He [Lineker] now seems to thing hes bigger and more important then the BBC or the programme(s) he presents/presented.
I hope they stick to their guns, and he finds out hes not.

Have the rules changed, or is it simply a more vindictive application of them depending on which side of the political fence you sit.

If the text hasn’t changed, and there’s nowhere else the BBC can point to for a similar application yet Lineker can point to Alan Sugar and Government acolytes posting as they wish, it could be a very costly error at the expense of the public purse.

Originally Posted by Paul

That was 4+ years ago.
As has already been pointed out, things changed under the latest chairman, and all the staff knew this, as Im quite sure did Lineker.

Alan Sugar was tweeting against the unions just before Christmas. The Apprentice is still airing. Karren Brady is a Tory Peer and she is on the show with him.

The difference is the Government didn't complain about him.

BBC News Presenters should be impartial on Twitter. Everyone else should be judged on how relevant their politicisation is to their role at the BBC. Otherwise, does it extend to presenters of Strictly Come Dancing? What about documentaries? Does Brian Cox need to be politically neutral on Twitter lest his science shows are brought into disruption?