News Forum - Can the BBC ever recover from their latest humiliation?

[Thaiger]

The supposedly politically neutral British national broadcaster has taken the humiliating action of offering a grovelling apology to their politically biased football presenter, Gary Lineker. This action is likely to enrage a significant portion of the BBC’s reluctant license payers, many of whom are now likely to reconsider renewing their TV License if they weren’t …

The story Can the BBC ever recover from their latest humiliation? as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Shade_Wilder]

Churchill, Pitt (both the elder and the younger), Gladstone, Disraeli and the like must be spinning in their graves.

[Khunmark]

I don’t want an impartial bbc; when good journalism is sacrificed so as to be seen as being impartial it only serves the interests of politicians, and we are all the poorer. Just tell it how it is. 

[JohninDublin]

40 minutes ago, Khunmark said:

I don’t want an impartial bbc; when good journalism is sacrificed so as to be seen as being impartial it only serves the interests of politicians, and we are all the poorer. Just tell it how it is. 

I admire the impartiality of Sky News in the UK, but I am not sure what conditions are attached to staff and twitter a/c's off duty. Most people probably know that Sky is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and it was conditional on the grant of his broadcast, that the channel was strictly neutral. That has worked, and so far Murdoch, has played the game. The thought of the UK being home to a Fox News clone appalls me.

I also have to say, that I would take a different view of impartiality, if it was a case of whistle-blowing, or in the case of Lineker, defence of human rights. I hate what has become a cliche, the quote, "Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it", but I always make an exception for this: A quote from German Lutheran, Pastor Niemoller:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

[Chaimai]

I don't agree about Lineker but the rest is spot on, well worthy of a like.

[ShibaBud]

BBC CNN MSNBC all mainstream media shed their impartiality long ago, to push the unipolar New World Order. Just rewind back to what they said about Nord stream when it happened.

[Rookiescot]

Who wrote this steaming pile of right wing garbage?

The irony is its supposedly calling out the BBC for a lack of impartiality while white knighting rabid, barely hidden racism. 

At least Lineker had the balls to put his name on his post unlike the author of this nazi propaganda. 

[JohninDublin]

51 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Who wrote this steaming pile of right wing garbage?

The irony is its supposedly calling out the BBC for a lack of impartiality while white knighting rabid, barely hidden racism. 

At least Lineker had the balls to put his name on his post unlike the author of this nazi propaganda. 

How apt it is that "Suella" rhymes with "Cruella" one of the meanest characters in cinematic history.

[JohninDublin]

I made the mistake of commenting before reading the article on the Thaiger. It really is a sloppy and extremely poor article.

It states ""...a grovelling apology to their politically biased football presenter". Does the writer know what Lineker's political affiliations are?

It accuses him of "virtue signalling". To call out an attack on human rights is "virtue signalling"?

It states that, "The BBC charges every household in the UK 159 GBP / 6,600 THB per year for the privilege of listening to the likes of Gary Lineker virtue signalling* at every opportunity." They don't. Those households who are charged are those who use a TV set. 

The migrants are not "mostly Albanian". 

"Bear in mind, the new proposed rules will not impact genuine migrants entering the UK legally, only those that break the law and enter illegally." That totally misses the point that under International law, we have a duty to offer safe harbour to refugees, and the UK has spent years deliberately making it almost impossible to make claims from abroad. The fact that over 75% of these last year, are accepted when they finally make landfall in the UK, shows just how disingenuous the whole scheme is.

It refers to Nicola Sturgeon as a "disgraced former minister". What disgrace?

It lies about his failure to criticise the Qataris. https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/gary-lineker-qatar-bbc-speech-b2234454.html Extract: The BBC did not cover the opening ceremony of the World Cup and Lineker instead led a discussion around off-field concerns, including Qatar’s treatment of migrant workers and the country’s discriminatory LGBTQ+ laws.

Most laughably, it states "This action is likely to enrage a significant portion of the BBC’s reluctant license payers, many of whom are now likely to reconsider renewing their TV License if they weren’t already." Obviously, the writer is not aware that if you receive a broadcast signal to your TV, then you have to pay the licence fee. I don't see too many families watching Netfix etc on their laptops, and the multiple subscriptions they will need to pay.

I noticed that even though the writer clearly indicates that he has political biases of his own, he lacks thhe courage to put his name to the by-line. Hardly surprising. Even Goebbels would have been embarrassed to put his name to that dross.

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Who wrote this steaming pile of right wing garbage?

The irony is its supposedly calling out the BBC for a lack of impartiality while white knighting rabid, barely hidden racism. 

At least Lineker had the balls to put his name on his post unlike the author of this nazi propaganda. 

I've just read the article, and now fully understand your post. Very well said.

Recently I've felt like I've stumbled into a forum for The Monday Club. A former section of the Tory Party, that  even the Tories repudiated as being too right wing.

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

I've just read the article, and now fully understand your post. Very well said.

Recently I've felt like I've stumbled into a forum for The Monday Club. A former section of the Tory Party, that  even the Tories repudiated as being too right wing.

Entire thing reads like an opinion piece from a right wing neo nazi snowflake hiding behind anonymity.  

[Karolyn]

Culture war crap, using immigration issues as a dog whistle. Not for votes, for viewers

[Marble-eye]

Frank Warren hits the nail on the head. 

[LuckyStrike]

neutral..... lol

[JohninDublin]

6 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

Frank Warren hits the nail on the head. 

Lineker's reference to 1930's Germany was before the gassing and working people to death. He talks about Lineker's failure to mention Human Rights in Qatar. That is wrong, and he says that Lineker needs to "...Get his facts right". Laughable.

He also fails to make mention of the fact that the majority of cases of the "Boat People" are granted asylum, and this gov is attempting to circumvent it's obligations under international law by making it almost impossible to make claims from abroad. Thus "illegal entry", becomes the only option. But maybe he is unaware of that, though I am not sure he would even care.

I did notice an obvious edit in that vid. Could it be that Warren said, "I have no objections to genuine claimants?", but I don't really believe that's remotely possible. 

[Grumpish]

14 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

Frank Warren hits the nail on the head. 

Now you have gone and done it, expect shiny white "hate-the-tories" hobby horses to come charging in, anguished howls about freedom of speech actually only meaning the freedom to say what they tell you to say, and "I am right because I said so, which means you are wrong" hissy fits.

Actually the article is a bit biased, although the author does admit it,  and not that accurate, either - Wee Jimmy Krankie, sorry Nicola Sturgeon, didn't resign in disgrace,  for example

[JohninDublin]

On 3/16/2023 at 2:52 AM, Grumpish said:

Now you have gone and done it, expect shiny white "hate-the-tories" hobby horses to come charging in, anguished howls about freedom of speech actually only meaning the freedom to say what they tell you to say, and "I am right because I said so, which means you are wrong" hissy fits.

Actually the article is a bit biased, although the author does admit it,  and not that accurate, either - Wee Jimmy Krankie, sorry Nicola Sturgeon, didn't resign in disgrace,  for example

I presume your first paragraph is directed at me. Rather clumsy as I have not really adopted the "free speech mantra", and when I have told someone they are wrong, I have backed it with facts, but don't let those get in the way of such facile post.

You really just don't get it do you? Did you not learn anything from the Pastor Niemoller text? It's a about the defence of human rights. Hopefully you will never fall foul of such behaviour, but if you do, you will only be too happy to have the likes of myself and other like minded people defending you. "The real strength of a democracy is not measured by it's majority, but by the way we treat the people we care least for". Sir John Mortimer 1923-2009.