Lineker flouted his responsibilities to the fans
The BBC’s sports pundits were in open revolt yesterday, after the national broadcaster told Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day. The stars involved appear to think that a united stand will convince the BBC to give way. But it must stand firm. Gary Lineker cannot be allowed to keep his role as the BBC’s highest-paid presenter without apology or without accepting any responsibility to moderate his public political commentary. Crucially, the BBC cannot back down. Both its credibility as a neutral, universal service and its unique funding model are now on the line.
When Tim Davie was appointed as the BBC’s directorgeneral, he understood immediately that it faced a double crisis. New streaming technology and subscription-based services were undermining the case for maintaining a licence fee enforced by legal mandate. At the same time, the age of social media was compromising the BBC’s reputation for impartiality. Once, stars were only known through their appearances on traditional broadcast channels, making it far easier to maintain editorial discipline. As new, digital avenues of expression opened up, the airing of personal views by the BBC’s stars was becoming an existential risk.
Mr Davie saw that the universal licence-fee model can only be sustained if the BBC continues to be recognised as a service for everyone in modern Britain. Why else should we all be forced to pay for it? In the new digital age, the BBC’s unique status imposes a unique discipline on those who work there. Rightly, Mr Davie imposed social-media guidelines on BBC journalists. While these were stricter for those working in news departments, they included those in other areas as well, including sports.
The BBC’s most expensive signing, and one of its most famous faces, was always going to prove an important test of the new regime. Mr Lineker has repeatedly pushed against the requirement to show discretion in his use of social media. But it is clear that he is in breach of the rules. He was told last year by the BBC Complaints Unit that a tweet he posted, which was critical of the Conservative Party, broke its editorial standards on impartiality, and that his high profile came with “additional responsibility”.
No doubt a freelancer with a big social-media following finds this an imposition. But representing the BBC to the nation is also a privilege, which is what distinguishes the social-media problem at the BBC from those at other broadcasters. It is thus unsustainable that one of the BBC’s most famous faces should be left free to express views so out of kilter with the people who pay for its programmes.
Because while Mr Lineker has succeeded in making himself the centre of attention, he has shown little care for the viewers he was hired to serve. For the BBC’s audience, his actions have resulted in a double loss. We have once again had partisan politics thrust between us and the enjoyment of Premier League football. This unwanted politicisation turns a sport that serves many as a welcome relief from the cares of everyday life into one more front in today’s relentless culture war. And to add insult to injury, yesterday even the BBC’s world-class sports coverage was denied us, thanks to the pundits’ high-minded boycott.
After two-and-a-half years, a lack of firm and consistent action to crack down on social-media neutrality has left the BBC in a position of weakness. Perhaps it has been hoping for a middle way, where it could keep Mr Lineker’s talent as a presenter while allowing him some latitude to express his views with moderation elsewhere. This may have been the outcome most football fans would have preferred as well. Instead, he chose to speak out in the most controversial terms possible. After the issuing of last year’s yellow card, the BBC was left with no option but to bench Mr Lineker. A former footballer should have known that you have to abide by the rules if you want to play the game.
China’s dangerous gambit
While the eyes of the West are on Russia’s appalling war in Ukraine, alarming developments in the Middle East deserve close international attention. By brokering the restoration of ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran, China has pulled off a dangerous diplomatic coup, one that risks upending the region’s fragile balance of power.
China’s intervention sidesteps the US-backed Abraham Accords, which have been bringing Gulf states closer to Israel in alliance against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. That threat is increasingly urgent. A top US official recently announced that Iran could now enrich enough uranium for a nuclear bomb in just 12 days. Iran’s ruthless, terrorist regime is also a growing danger to UK national interests, and sits high on the concerns of our security services.
While any step towards peace between rival powers is welcome, no one should be in any doubt that Iran remains a pressing danger to the UK and the world. The window of time to stop it from acquiring atomic weapons is increasingly narrow. The consequences of failure would be unthinkable. In pursuit of its rival vision for world order, China has destabilised the diplomatic status quo at a point where one misstep risks catastrophe.