Broadcasting talent deserts BBC after they cancel Lineker

Original post by Aky786UK

On a Saturday which is THE football day of the week it's unprecedented to come to terms with the fact that today there is:

❌️ no Football Focus,
❌️ no Final Score,
❌️ no 5 Live coverage,
❌️ no pre or post match interviews (except for two clubs, Newcastle and Nottingham Forest)
❌️ no presenters or pundits for Match Of The Day
❌️ no analysis on Match Of The Day, simply the highlights

And all because the BBC decided to put its reputation, which has been dwindling tbh, on the line to back *this* Tory Government's migrant policy and stop Lineker from doing his job.

It's quite glorious to see the talent pool give the bosses the middle finger (for a day anyway), and now the shoddy management of the corporation will have to do a humongous u-turn to reinstate Lineker with the FA Cup Quarter Finals coming up.

In the long term, it could damage their rights access if they can't produce their normal shows as they are in bed with a Government who can nudge them to take unfair action against talent, leading to others to essentially, strike.

See here, where this is being discussed:

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7324822

It's quite glorious to see the talent pool give the bosses the middle finger (for a day anyway), and now the shoddy management of the corporation will have to do a humongous u-turn to reinstate Lineker with the FA Cup Quarter Finals coming up.

This isn't going to happen: both sides have taken a position now with no exit strategy. Lineker isn't going give the BBC the assurances that they want to hear regarding his social media use - and neither should he. Similarly, Tim Davie and the BBC management aren't going to cave in, because it's Davie's core mission to 'restore impartiality'. Thus, we have a stand-off.

Unfortunately, this is going to end with Lineker, and probably quite a few others, leaving the BBC for pastures new. Broadcasters and media outlets will be fighting to get him onboard: I imagine draft contracts are being drawn up today up and down the country.

Reply 2

Mess.

The ‘talent’ side of this argument comes out of this much better than a Tory donor / guy who arranges million pound loans for a Tory MP.

That said, I do think it’s a disgrace the salaries that the BBC pay the likes of Lineker. The broadcaster should be there to develop talent and once the salaries become astronomical, let them go to BT/Sky and start bringing through the next generation.

Nobody watches match of the day for Lineker, so in normal circumstances, if he was replaced nobody would actually stop watching the programme.

Talent is a somewhat loose description

Reply 4

Mess.

Original post by CoolCavy

Talent is a somewhat loose description

That’s my main issue. There is a level of talent with all presenting, as it is one of those things that everyone believes they can do until they actually try it.

But the level of talent is far outweighed by name recognition. The BBC should not be paying for name recognition, they should be developing the quality.

Reply 5

I agree with the idea that Sports presenters should not be bound by the same impartiality rules as others, so the BBC is wrong here
That's not to say Lineker is not equally misguided in his Hampstead liberal view of the refugee policy. He does not see the consequences of the migration on wage levels, crime, housing, GP waiting lists etc. Not to mention the moral issue of pretending that Albanian ex-cons who arrive without passports deserve any sympathy at all. Everyone knows refugees treat the UK as a soft touch and the way to end the madness is to make it clear that there is no point trying to come. And comparing this to Nazi Germany is as cliche as it is completely incorrect.
But that's besides the point, he is entitled to his nonsense views.

Generally the BBC should not be paying huge salaries for Sports presenters. It's not voluntary to pay the license fee and the private sector would pick up Sports anyway. The BBC should instead spend its resources on Arts, Documentaries etc that would not be made otherwise.

And Gary Linekere is not particularly good at his job. Give me Des Lynum any day of the week

(edited 8 months ago)

Reply 6

Stiff Little Fingers

21

Original post by Zürich

.

Generally the BBC should not be paying huge salaries for Sports presenters. It's not voluntary to pay the license fee and the private sector would pick up Sports anyway. The BBC should instead spend its resources on Arts, Documentaries etc that would not be made otherwise.

ignoring the ill-informed ramblings about the fascist UK government, there are two problems with this. 1. a certain amount of sports (and certain sports) are required by law to be free to air. 2. the BBC is also censoring it's documentaries to appease the Tories (one by David Attenborough on the lack of biodiversity in Britain got pulled from airing over fears that it'd upset right wingers)

Reply 7

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

ignoring the ill-informed ramblings about the fascist UK government, there are two problems with this. 1. a certain amount of sports (and certain sports) are required by law to be free to air. 2. the BBC is also censoring it's documentaries to appease the Tories (one by David Attenborough on the lack of biodiversity in Britain got pulled from airing over fears that it'd upset right wingers)

Well abolish the TV license

Anyone who thinks the BBC is generally not ultra left wing is living in a fantasy world. There will be isolated incidents but it's so far to the left in general

Reply 8

Original post by Zürich

Well abolish the TV license

Don't you think if it were that simple, it would have been done years ago?

Reply 9

Original post by Reality Check

Don't you think if it were that simple, it would have been done years ago?

So what are the hindrances?

Reply 10

Original post by Zürich

So what are the hindrances?

All of the viable alternatives have just as many problems as the licence fee does. A special tax deduction to fund public service broadcasters, à la Scandinavia? I think we can all see how that will be reported in The Daily Mail and The Telegraph? Special grant from the government? Good luck with the political neutrality there. Adverts? Wouldn't raise nearly enough money to allow the BBC to continue to provide the depth and width of services it currently does, meaning that the 'public service' part of the BBC would inevitably get dumped because it's not commercially viable - so the thing that makes a pubcaster a pubcaster disappears.

No-one has yet come up with a workable alternative to the licence fee.

Reply 11

Original post by Reality Check

All of the viable alternatives have just as many problems as the licence fee does. A special tax deduction to fund public service broadcasters, à la Scandinavia? I think we can all see how that will be reported in The Daily Mail and The Telegraph? Special grant from the government? Good luck with the political neutrality there. Adverts? Wouldn't raise nearly enough money to allow the BBC to continue to provide the depth and width of services it currently does, meaning that the 'public service' part of the BBC would inevitably get dumped because it's not commercially viable - so the thing that makes a pubcaster a pubcaster disappears.

No-one has yet come up with a workable alternative to the licence fee.

Why on earth do the BBC fund PL highlights when the private sector would happily provide this?
Why do they provide The Voice, The Apprentice, Eurovision, etc

This is where the vast vast majority of the budget goes. The BBC can still fund the News and documentaries and we can all pay maybe £25 a year in license fees.

The private sector will provide the rest and we can all watch when we wish. The quality will not decrease. Otherwise you would argue that the license fee should be increase to fund live PL games!

Those who disagree have an agenda and are almost always heavily bent to the left. The kind of guys who were clapping the NHS on Thursdays fanatically. These people are not thinking clearly.

--

Gary Lineker is entitled to his own opinion. If he was paid by ITV or whoever then he could speak to his hearts content and we would not have to think about any impartiality guidelines. This is what state control of the media results in, censorship.

(edited 8 months ago)

Reply 12

IanDangerously

Im fully in support of Gary Lineker’s right to speak his mind, but at the same time I actually really enjoyed the presentation of MOTD tonight.

Commentary is obviously important for visually impaired viewers and those who only watch football on television, but I personally don’t need someone to tell me what I literally just saw. For match-going fans who enjoy the noise of a roaring stadium, taking out the inane waffling over the game can definitely be a case of addition by subtraction.

Maybe they should start making use of the red button and letting the fan pick the audio program they want like Sky Sports did back in the day? 🤔

Also in this era, an 80 minute show feels like an eternity … 20 is far more digestible. In the future all football highlights will be like this I reckon.

Reply 13

Stiff Little Fingers

21

Original post by Zürich

Well abolish the TV license

Anyone who thinks the BBC is generally not ultra left wing is living in a fantasy world. There will be isolated incidents but it's so far to the left in general

it's literally chaired by a Tory donor, it is in no way ultra left wing

Reply 14

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

ignoring the ill-informed ramblings about the fascist UK government, there are two problems with this. 1. a certain amount of sports (and certain sports) are required by law to be free to air. 2. the BBC is also censoring it's documentaries to appease the Tories (one by David Attenborough on the lack of biodiversity in Britain got pulled from airing over fears that it'd upset right wingers)

The Beeb are claiming that the last episode (about rewilding) was never planned to be shown live, only on the iPlayer. Seems a bit of a stretch, I don't recall them doing this before with Attenborough's shows.

Reply 15

Original post by Zürich

Why on earth do the BBC fund PL highlights when the private sector would happily provide this?
Why do they provide The Voice, The Apprentice, Eurovision, etc

This is where the vast vast majority of the budget goes.

This is not true. The BBC devotes most of its television spend on news and current affairs - incidentally the part of the BBC most admired across the world and which the 'public good' aspect of the BBC as a pubcaster probably shines through the brightest.

The BBC can still fund the News and documentaries and we can all pay maybe £25 a year in license fees.

This is a good example of what I talk about later - public service broadcasting. You inadvertently describe here what you think is valid for the BBC to do, and which you're happy to pay for: news/current affairs and documentaries. But what about other people, who think that CBeebies is the thing which is worth paying for? Or another, who thinks BBC4 is the thing? This is where an argument for some sort of subscription model becomes more persuasive, rather than a mandatory licence fee, but again, that is another discussion

The private sector will provide the rest and we can all watch when we wish. The quality will not decrease. Otherwise you would argue that the license fee should be increase to fund live PL games!

The point is that the BBC is a pubcaster, and provides content which is considered a 'public good', like religious programming, but which the commercial sector would never provide due to its small audience and relatively high production cost. In other words, who else would provide this sort of content? You might think that this sort of content has no place being broadcast anyway, and the 'market should decide' what sort of content gets made and distributed, but that's a discussion about the wider concept of public service broadcasting, and a whole new thread.

Those who disagree have an agenda and are almost always heavily bent to the left. The kind of guys who were clapping the NHS on Thursdays fanatically. These people are not thinking clearly.

It's not usually a good sign during a discussion when someone says 'anyone who disagrees with me has an agenda and is skewed to *insert political standpoint here*'.

Reply 16

Original post by Reality Check

This is not true. The BBC devotes most of its television spend on news and current affairs - incidentally the part of the BBC most admired across the world and which the 'public good' aspect of the BBC as a pubcaster probably shines through the brightest.

This is a good example of what I talk about later - public service broadcasting. You inadvertently describe here what you think is valid for the BBC to do, and which you're happy to pay for: news/current affairs and documentaries. But what about other people, who think that CBeebies is the thing which is worth paying for? Or another, who thinks BBC4 is the thing? This is where an argument for some sort of subscription model becomes more persuasive, rather than a mandatory licence fee, but again, that is another discussion

The point is that the BBC is a pubcaster, and provides content which is considered a 'public good', like religious programming, but which the commercial sector would never provide due to its small audience and relatively high production cost. In other words, who else would provide this sort of content? You might think that this sort of content has no place being broadcast anyway, and the 'market should decide' what sort of content gets made and distributed, but that's a discussion about the wider concept of public service broadcasting, and a whole new thread.

It's not usually a good sign during a discussion when someone says 'anyone who disagrees with me has an agenda and is skewed to *insert political standpoint here*'.

My point generally is that the BBC wastes a great deal of money on programming that otherwise would be provided and funded by advertising or fees.
Why does the BBC show Glastonbury and pay the likes of Fern Cotton to be on the ground there?
Why pay Alan Sugar for the Apprentice?
Why pay Lineker for MOTD?

This all adds up and its not an insignificant amount. >£500m from your attached.

If you want these things then do not rely on the license fee to fund it.

And frankly those who are in support of the BBC do have a very clear agenda. Almost universally eating from the through of public funding one way or another. Whether that be grants to the Arts, working for the NHS or public sector bureaucrats generally. The kind of people who have a religious fascination with the BBC and adore its coverage, for purely selfish grounds. Thatcher ought to have privatized the BBC when these people were on the retreat, finish them off then.

As a first step, bring in advertising. This would raise a huge amount of money wouldnt it? All programming could be kept, perhaps with a smaller license fee.

The reason why Left wing people refuse that idea is because they have an agenda against the private sector. Probably because they themselves are eating from the same through. You see what I am getting at? Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. And they are correct to see the BBC reforms as being a step towards bringing their own subsidized existence to an end. They are pretty much all leeches!

(edited 8 months ago)

Reply 17

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Zürich

My point generally is that the BBC wastes a great deal of money on programming that otherwise would be provided and funded by advertising or fees.
Why does the BBC show Glastonbury and pay the likes of Fern Cotton to be on the ground there?
Why pay Alan Sugar for the Apprentice?
Why pay Lineker for MOTD?

Because license fees are paid by a vast range of people so they feel an obligation to try to serve as many of them as possible with as wide a range of programming as possible.

It actually used to be an even broader service, they have lost some of the key sports to the competition and have given up some of the documentary, arts and history programming they used to do.

Reply 18

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Because license fees are paid by a vast range of people so they feel an obligation to try to serve as many of them as possible with as wide a range of programming as possible.

It actually used to be an even broader service, they have lost some of the key sports to the competition and have given up some of the documentary, arts and history programming they used to do.

In 2022, public service broadcasting is no longer needed. A relic that should be reformed.

Or at he very least, introduce advertising and pass the savings back to the license payers

Reply 19

Fullofsurprises