Let's talk about Gary Lineker
Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 15:00 Declaration of interest.
For six years (1985-1990) I was director of the Media Monitoring Unit which was set up to monitor BBC, ITV and Channel 4 current affairs programmes for political bias.
Our main target was the BBC, some of whose employees seemed to regard the Corporation as the official opposition to Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government.
With that in mind you will forgive me for adding my tuppence ha'penny to the 'debate' about Gary Lineker.
Frankly, and this is no exaggeration, the outcome feels as important to me as the miners' strike in 1984.
It's not, of course, and some of you may be rolling your eyes at the very suggestion, but if Lineker and his pals prevail and he is reinstated without agreeing to tone down his political tweets and comments, I do think it will set the BBC if not the country on a path we may live to regret.
Nevertheless, to continue the miners' analogy, I always believed the Thatcher government would prevail, largely because of the principles and determination of Mrs T herself.
It was clear too that she had prepared for it, hence the stockpiling of coal over several years to avoid the same humiliating fate the Heath government had experienced a decade earlier when coal quickly ran out after the miners went on strike and we had electricity cuts and the infamous three-day week.
Compare that to the BBC-Lineker situation.
No-one can say they weren't warned. Lineker's political tweets had been an issue before. He had been reprimanded and warned, allegedly, but the odds must have been quite high that he would continue to flout the BBC's internal guidelines.
Why didn't they have a plan to avoid the mess that has happened this weekend, with pundits, commentators and fellow presenters all declining to work not just on Match Of The Day but on Football Focus, Final Score and other BBC programmes like Fighting Talk on Five Live?
As someone (I can't remember whom) said yesterday, if you're going to remove your leading presenter you have to have a plan.
Personally I don't give a toss that Football Focus or Final Score won't be broadcast today. I haven't watched Football Focus for 40 years, and I rarely watch Final Score which seems a pale imitation of Jeff Stelling's Saturday Soccer on Sky Sports.
As it happens I rarely watch that either. Instead I listen for the results on Five Live (which is why I was so annoyed when they got rid of the classified results at 5.00pm) or I follow the scores on the BBC website while working or watching something else – the rugby, perhaps, or a film.
Meanwhile, announcing her decision not to present Football Focus today, Alex Scott was reported to have referred to it as "my show".
I'm sorry, it's not your show. I remember Football Focus when it was presented by the late, great Sam Leitch.
A great big tubby man, no-one could confuse Leitch for a footballer, not even a retired one. He was a journalist with a deep knowledge of the game who everyone respected.
Today the studios are crammed with former footballers, male and female, some more articulate than others, who are recruited as pundits or co-commentators with a handful fast tracked to the role of presenter (sometimes too soon, if you ask me, before they have enough experience).
But back to Football Focus. There have been many, many presenters of FF before Alex Scott and, unless she has just torpedoed the programme, she won't be the last.
Likewise MOTD. Yesterday someone said Gary Lineker is Match of the Day. No, he isn't!! He's merely the current presenter, keeping the chair warm for his successor.
Before Lineker there was the great Des Lynam, and before that Jimmy Hill and David Coleman and one or two I may have forgotten.
Even Lynam was replaceable, and Lineker is too. After all, does anyone seriously watch MOTD for the presenter or the pundits?
More often than not I watch the highlights on iPlayer and fast forward during the studio analysis which is far less fun for the viewer than the presenter and his chortling sidekicks may think.
Btw, have you noticed how much 'fun' and banter there is in the studio these days, whether it's TV or radio? No wonder they've all downed tools in support of Lineker. They're not colleagues, they're 'mates' so of course they have to show solidarity for 'one of their own'.
Talking of whom, those political tweets included the absurd and insulting suggestion that the Home Secretary's language on illegal immigration was reminiscent of 1930s Germany. How offensive, and inaccurate, is that?
I won't get into that specific debate other than to point you in the direction of an excellent article by Michael Deacon, assistant editor of the Telegraph.
'Gary Lineker has ‘stepped back’ from the BBC – now they should make his departure permanent' is behind a paywall but do read it if you can.
One subject it tackles is freedom of speech. Even people I like and respect (and are not fans of Gary Lineker) seem to think this dispute is about free speech. It's not. As Deacon points out:
On Wednesday, Mr Lineker sarcastically tweeted that it was “great to see the freedom of speech champions” demanding his “silence”. But this isn’t about freedom of speech. It’s about the BBC. If one of its leading presenters expresses hysterically partisan political views, the BBC’s impartiality is bound to be called into question.
Lineker may be freelance and work for other broadcasters but he’s the BBC's highest paid presenter, for Christ’s sake, with arguably the biggest profile of any BBC presenter after David Attenborough.
He didn't achieve that profile by presenting programmes on BT Sport or LaLiga TV, who have also employed him. As someone else said yesterday, he has 'BBC' stamped on his forehead and with that comes responsibilities, including the responsibility not to say or tweet overtly political messages while he is being paid by millions of licence payers who are under threat of criminal prosecution if we don't cough up.
I suspect though that many younger people, below the age of 30 certainly, have never purchased a TV licence so arguments about the licence fee being a factor in relation to Lineker's attacks on government ministers go right over their heads.
Part of the problem of course is social media. It must be lovely to enjoy the love and support of millions of followers, but it's an echo chamber. How does Lineker not see that?
So where do we go from here? There are two options:
One, Lineker must accept, like all leading BBC presenters, to abide by the Corporation's guidelines on political tweets and comments. It doesn't matter if he is 'freelance'. It's the perception that matters, not the technicality.
Two, if he can't accept the restrictions of working for the BBC, he should quit. He won't be cancelled or out of work because many commercial broadcasters would love to have him.
If, in his absence, commentators, presenters and pundits like Alan Shearer don’t want to work for the BBC, no problem. Jog on.
A less selfish individual might regret the chaos he has caused these past few days and the hellishly difficult position he has put many of his colleagues in.
They may have downed tools in 'solidarity' but how many have done so in order not to be labelled a 'scab'. There’s no bravery in being part of the herd so there must be mixed feelings, to say the least.
Lineker, meanwhile, can walk into another, probably better paid, job. But can they?
What annoys me, and must annoy some of his BBC colleagues, is why does he expect to be treated differently to most of his fellow BBC sports presenters, past and present?
I never had a clue what David Coleman’s politics were, nor Jimmy Hill's, nor Des Lynam's (until he retired and endorsed Ukip).
Ditto current sports presenters like Clare Balding or Gabby Logan.
I'm not a fan of Mark 'Chappers' Chapman – who has also joined today's exodus – but, again, I have absolutely no idea what his politics are, and that’s how it should be.
If they can accept the rules under which they work for the BBC, why can't Lineker?
Meanwhile it's not just his colleagues who have been put in a difficult position but the BBC itself because their actions may have put the BBC in breach of its contract with the Premier League.
In today's multimedia world no broadcaster has a right to exist, so let the BBC self destruct if it wants to.
Personally I don’t mind the compulsory licence fee model if in return I get advertisement free TV and a handful of ad free radio stations.
But political impartiality is an important part of the deal, which is why even sports presenters must exercise some restraint when airing their personal views.
Sadly I have very little confidence that BBC management will win this particular battle, although I live in hope that director-general Tim Davie will stick to his guns.
Like Julie Burchill, however, who has written an excellent article for The Spectator (The ignorance of Gary Lineker):
I don’t have any faith in the BBC to have a backbone for more than a fortnight, so I’m sure that Lineker’s more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger smirk will soon be delighting us again.
I sincerely hope she's wrong but I wouldn't bet on it.
Update: Michael Portillo on GB News yesterday - “As soon as the BBC gives up on impartiality the licence fee becomes untenable.”
Exactly right.
Reader Comments (3)
Frankly, I've never understood, nor agreed with, the concept that individuals who work for the BBC are expected to be politically neutral in their lives off air, theoretically being unable to speak out in public. Lineker was clearly speaking as an individual, and not as a representative of the BBC. Just because some people might be too thick to make that distinction, that shouldn't be his problem.
Although Lineker should perhaps have used a less insensitive comparator, his fundamental point was correct, especially where the Home Secretary is concerned. Even some Tories must put their heads in their hands, every time she opens her mouth. As for the policies she comes up with, they're morally bankrupt, but then we've come to expect nothing less from her. I suspect that Braverman is probably the most egregious example ever, of pulling up the ladder behind you.
Lastly, it's about time that there was no government involvement in the appointment of senior BBC officials, like the Chair. There should be an independent body, either a cross-party select committee, with no government majority of members, or perhaps even directly in the personal hands of the monarch, given the BBC operate under Royal Charter.
Comparing Linekers advocacy of moderate language to Clarksons hate-filled incitement of violence to a named person is so stupid as to defy belief ,except coming from one of the current crop of Conservative M.P.s, and ministers.(I was a conservative for 60 years,and no liberal, but never again a tory).
To be clear, Neil, I'm not Conservative MP Simon Clarke who was on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg (BBC One). For the benefit of readers who don't know, he said:
"I don't like cancel culture of any kind, I don't like to see people being taken off air. I think there is a slight irony here and a slight hypocrisy because obviously I wonder how many of the same people calling for Gary Lineker to be restored were calling for Jeremy Clarkson a few weeks ago to be removed."
To be honest, I'm not sure what was moderate about Lineker's reference to 1930s Germany. The inference was very clear and, in my opinion, rather stupid.