Originally Posted by
Mossdog
I think Lineker is a distraction to a wider issue that has now come to the fore. Should he have a right to say anything he likes? Of course he should (within the permit of the law), as any healthy democracy needs to have freedom of speech and sometimes we all need to hear other views, no matter how abhorrent, or 'wrong', in order to help us reflect on our own positions/opinions.
But this argument isn't really about freedom of speech, no matter how the Guardian and their like, try to portray it. Rather, I think this is a matter of employment contract. I understand that Lineker, even being self employed and not directly a BBC employee, did sign a contract agreeing not to make party political statements. So, it doesn't matter that he's 'just' a sports presenter and not a news journalist. If you signed the contract then you should stick to it. If he wants to break the contract then he should leave, and he had already been warned because of previous political remarks he made. The same should be true of those who take a centre or right of centre position, and the BBC has been remiss in not taking action there too (I'm thinking of Sugar's remarks, etc.). Action doesn't necessarily have to be dismissal, if someone genuinely apologies and understand they made an error, but repeated offences and arrogance is surely a clear breach of contract.
Perhaps the wider related question is whether the BBC's attempts to strive for impartiality (and throughout its history there have been challenges), can any longer be maintained in the world of extensive social media, and its primacy as a form of broadcasting, together with employees holding multiple job portfolios. The rise of the hyper celebrity, with their significant sway over shaping the views and opinions of possibly millions of followers, has change the situation considerably in the Twenty First Century.
As things stand, I don't believe it is possible to maintain a national broadcaster which derives its funding from a tax on using TV sets, that everyone has to pay or face criminal action. I feel sad because up until 20 years or so ago, I adored the BBC. I also appreciate that offering programmes and stations such as the Worlds Service, BBC Radio 3, Science and Philosophy programmes, etc., can be a challenge to cater for as these are such relatively minority interests, perhaps not able to be supported by commercial stations. Yet there are some great podcasts out there that might fill the gap.
Clearly, the Lineker debacle shows something has to change. What about a slimmed down BBC and a cheaper licence fee? Should a national broadcaster still vie for the rights for major and global sporting events, when other commercial channels, even terrestrial, are able to provide this? Let the commercial channels pay their presenters millions of pounds if they can sustain it. Let's see how the BBC performs in the open market. Will sufficient people subscribe to the BBC's world view to keep it afloat? We'd see quite soon.