Why Support For Gary Lineker is So Important

Since the dawn of the internet how many media outlets have struggled to adapt? How many have a strategy to still maintain their market share by having their print and online presence compliment each other? The same goes with other media outlets.

This failure to adapt has opened up opportunities for others to step in, some doing a great job of filling a void. Others have unscrupulously sold concepts to unwitting and uniformed companies who in turn have failed to comprehend how much work and marketing spend is required to make their own platform a viable option.

Social media has added another layer to the whole media space. Media outlets feeling that they must be a part of that space to stay relevant, and frequently spitting out content to meet that need. Some do it exceptionally well. Others who simply regurgitate tweets from other individuals, and try and claim that this is a news story, do it very badly.

In many cases it comes down to how much the various outlets wish to invest. How does the old saying go? You pay peanuts you get monkeys. Although in many cases this is exceptionally harsh on the average simian!

What has been interesting, if not a little annoying is how many media outlets happily promote the twitter handles of their presenters and commentators, encouraging us to follow them, and thereby hoping to be able to gain from that following.

Also in the broadcast world it is not uncommon for presenters and commentators to have to promote a social media handle or message during a tournament or broadcast.

This can lead to moral issues. This writer has never wished to promote betting companies. On radio it could be avoided, on television it was harder to bypass and so a decision had to be made whether to or not. Opting to do what was required, it did not go well as only saying what one was required to say resulted in the segment being too short and the sponsor was upset!

As we heave witnessed in the past fortnight the BBC’s host of Match of The Day, Gary Lineker has found himself suspended for a comment made on twitter comparing The British Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s rhetoric on the new refugee policy to that emanating from Germany in the 1930s. This particular tweet has upset many, while learned individuals have in fact given his tweet historic credibility.

The BBC, which is funded by the British people and the Government deemed that Mr Lineker had breached their impartiality clause. Like many such clauses it is extremely verbose and clearly created by legal experts. It is here for those who wish to read it (BBC Impartiality). The problem is, and this is undoubtedly deliberate on the part of the legal experts who were asked to write it, one can argue that the actual guide contradicts itself. The wording is ambiguous. In others words the legal experts will argue based on interpretation. Or more importantly the interpretation of the guidelines are at the discretion of the management. Something that has become increasingly common in the past 20 years.

For example the opening line of the guidelines states that the BBC is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output.” It goes on to state that “The term ‘due’ means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.” The use of “adequate” is a strange one, as it means “satisfactory or acceptable” and therefore with a document stating that impartiality is important is rather wishy-washy. Who determines what is adequate?

Then there is the wording “likely audience expectation.” This tends to indicate a pandering to a perceived audience. Surely if the BBC still had the reputation of old there would be absolutely no need to be trying to gauge your audience and its response. For the BBC was for decades renowned for its professionalism, and would only report the facts. There was no need for such guidelines, it was expected and was part of the culture.

As we are finding the BBC is a typical modern day organisation where they pull out such guidelines when it suits. It has been reported that the Chairman of the BBC was a former banker with Goldman Sachs where he worked with the current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Nothing wrong with that, however he is under investigation for being appointed to the BBC role by Boris Johnson after securing Johnson a £800,000 loan. He is also a major Tory party donor (£400,000). As well as a Board member of right-wing think-tank, the Centre for Policy Studies. Tim Davie, the Director General of the BBC it has been reported stood as a councillor for the Conservative Party in Hammersmith. He was a former chairman of Hammersmith and Fulham Conservatives in the 1990s. So understandably he, and no doubt his friends in the Conservative party would have been extremely upset with Mr. Lineker’s comments. Ironically as Director-General, he has warned BBC staff to avoid ‘virtue signalling.’ Which is the “public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue.”

There have been other senior BBC staff who in the past week have had their involvement in various organisations questioned as to whether their impartiality stacks up. All of which has caused more damage to the BBC’s overall integrity.

Looking at the situation, first up one has to ask why the BBC employed Gary Lineker to host Match of The Day. One can only assume that it was first and foremost because they thought he was the best man for the job, and the fact that he has been host of the show for the past 24 years, the longest of any host, would tend to say he is doing a great job. Lineker had the ideal reputation as a footballer, Golden boot winner at the 1986 World Cup, three times first division top scorer, with three different clubs, and never booked. His was a clean wholesome image.

Clearly the BBC see Mr. Lineker as today being synonymous with the BBC and Match of The Day. Hence their reaction. There will undoubtedly be a generation of viewers who do not remember Lineker the player. However, for many others he will always be Gary Lineker the footballer, ahead of Gary Lineker the host of Match of The Day. A similar situation to Jimmy Hill host of the show from 1973-1988.

Lineker, despite the value of his contract has stated that he is a freelancer, and not an employee of the BBC. So where does that leave his freedom to have an opinion away from his work?

Trying to gag or control individuals by large organisations is nothing new. It is common now. Although baffling that some employers of sports broadcasters do not allow any staff to write about the event or tournament while it is taking place. More understandable, they are also not allowed to post pictures during the event on social media. Some would argue that such added publicity would help attract more interest!

As a freelancer myself I was presented with a contract to commentate a tournament that had a clause in it that stated that I could not write an article on that sport for six months after the tournament ended. Despite knowing that this was not feasible I took legal advice and was told not to sign the contract. An alternative option was presented, but a response was never received. I have not worked for that organisation since that day back in 2019. Which is fine. I was not prepared to sign such a contract, my choice. However when others have not been asked to sign such a document the picture changes.

One has to ask especially in relation to freelancers how organisations can prevent individuals from having opinions away from their work. Just because they have a public persona does that mean that they are not allowed to have views and opinions that are their own? After all many have causes that they truly believe in and are passionate about.

What was great to see was the unity shown to Lineker by other freelancers who worked alongside him, Ian Wright, Alan Shearer, Jermaine Jenas, Alex Scott, Mark Chapman and Micah Richards all refusing to step in or supply analysis. While some argued on social media that these former stars could afford to make such a stance that argument was turned on its head when the PFA said that players would not be available for interviews in support of Lineker as well as many other freelancers in various roles. Which meant that last weekend the BBC had no preview shows on radio or TV and no early evening summary of the final scores of Premier League games. Lunchtime TV program “Football Focus” was replaced with a rerun episode of the show “Bargain Hunt,” while early evening “Final Score” was swapped for “The Repair Shop.”

In the past week it has been established that Lineker, as a freelancer who doesn’t work in news or current affairs, isn’t bound by the same rules, as those employed in those programming departments. Despite this, referring back to the BBC Guidelines again, they state that “high-profile individuals should “avoid taking sides on party political issues or political controversies and to take care when addressing public policy matters.”

Yet the same guidelines also say, “we must always scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account with consistency and due impartiality.”

Lineker has continually made no secret of his views on refugees, and so has shown consistency. Knowing how strongly he feels on this subject has anyone stopped to ask would he have made the same comments if the Labour Party or any other Political party had used the same words? The answer is most likely to be yes. So that is being impartial. His were not party politically motivated comments. Some will definitely argue that comparing the current Government’s rhetoric to Pre-War Nazi Germany was political, and they may well have a point. However, clearly Lineker knew his history to make such a volatile statement, he has followed the rules and scrutinised the history in order to make such a statement. As for questioning consensus, the past week in the very space he commented one would have to say that the views on the Government’s refugee policy is fairly evenly split; as are the views on Lineker himself.

As Lineker has said perviously he will champion the refugee situation, because that is a “humanitarian issue” rather than a political one. Again some may feel that while pushing a humanitarian issue with his controversial tweet, he did cross the line into politics. The great thing about the Western world is that we are entitled to our opinions.

Freedom of speech comes with a responsibility. It does not mean that you can simply say what you wish, although plenty do. If you wish to make a point you must do so carefully and with consideration to others, one should never go out of one’s way to offend.

What has been pleasing to witness in the Lineker situation is the unity amongst the other freelancers, as the key issue should be that they are the best at what they do and that is why they are employed. What gives you the right to try and gag them or suppress their freedom of thought and opinion? There is power in unity, however we frequently witness today the powers that be doing all they can to create disunity in order to suit their own agendas. If you wish to hold positions of power and influence one has to expect criticism and that people are going to dislike what you do, believe, or who you are.

The important thing to remember is that differences of opinion are actually healthy if managed properly, as they can affect positive change.

Regrettably social media can undo much of that, as it tends to focus on the negative and frequently is abusive. There can be no doubt that many platforms exacerbate situations, and that has been evidenced in the past week with this particular issue.

Whether you agree with people speaking out or not it is important that people do. Whenever one witnesses attempts to silence people speaking up about injustices, Inequalities, or poor governance, respect their courage, and think of how often the speak for the silent majority, those unable to find a voice. Whenever someone speaks up and others try to silence them t is worth remembering the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller, “First 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 for me.”

Niemöller spoke these words after the end of World War II. He openly spoke about his own early complicity in Nazism, and his eventual change of heart. These powerful words about his guilt at remaining silent, and not speaking up are as relevant today as when he spoke them. This is why no matter how many guidelines are written those who believe passionately in something must and will always speak up.