The following is from the Twitter account of Andy Bell, who claims to have worked in the BBC. If you don't want to read it all, the most important point is in the last paragraph. Hands up if you think Lineker was expressing the view of the BBC.
Andy Bell
@andybell2000
Permit me an observation on the controversy surrounding @garylineker's view on immigration and asylum as expressed in his now notorious tweet. I worked in the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit for around a decade, adjudicating on complaints that there had been breaches of the BBC's editorial standards, including precisely such issues as those raised by the Lineker case.
The first step is to consider exactly what the BBC's (excellent) Editorial Guidlines have to say on the matter. This might seem pretty obvious but it appears to have been overlooked by most people atttacking Lineker, not least of all the Culture Secretary, Michelle Donelan. So, the relevant guideline here is this:
"15.3.13 Where individuals identify themselves as being linked with the BBC, or are programme makers, editorial staff, reporters or presenters primarily associated with the BBC, their public expressions of opinion have the potential to compromise the BBC’s impartiality and to damage its reputation. This includes the use of social media and writing letters to the press. Opinions expressed on social media are put into the public domain, can be shared and are searchable... 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."
All very sensible, as the Guidelines invariably are. And, note, they give as an example almost precisely the set of circumstances we are actually considering here.
So, the question is not whether Lineker, as a BBC employee (some of the time at least) is entitled to express such a view but whether, if he does, there is any real risk that the BBC's own impartiality might be compromised. In other words, might the view he expresses be taken to be the view of the BBC. Even the guidelines concede that in these particular circumstances the risk is low. Hands up those who think there is any such risk at all...
No, thought not.
Logged
