Thanks to the Guardian for the photo
A post about today’s change of rules for BBC presenters.
The BBC has announced a new set of rules for top presenters which will allow those hosting ‘flagship programmes’ to express their views on issues and policies.
Garry Lineker’s response has been understated, saying that new rules published today ‘were all very sensible’ ; but secretly he must be thrilled.
The new policy, announced by BBC’s director general Tim Davie, sets out one set of rules for news and current affairs reporters – and another for the entertainment and sports shows that are frequently hosted by freelancers. He stressed that the new guidance applies to people presenting major programmes, many of whom are freelancers, saying:
“These people don’t work for the BBC, and that’s really important. They are doing other things. I think we are trying to get the right balance…For someone who is doing a programme for only a few weeks a year it’s appropriate we are not restricting them for the whole year…’
Whilst seemingly a reasonable compromise, in an age when everyone in public life seems to have a view on everything and the ardent desire to make their views known immediately, does this recent change of policy by the BBC blur the lines between the independent and impartial broadcasting of fact – and promotion of the presenters’ opinion? Isn’t a temporary surrender of personal opinion by high-profile presenters not essential to preserve the BBC’s impartiality? Who, other than the presenter, is left to hold the ring?
The new ruling seeks to prevent those broadcasting on the BBC from political campaigning, but this in turn leads to confusion, especially when one recalls that the triggering event for change was Lineker’s tweet about government asylum policy being reminiscent of 1930s Germany.
Tim Davie did not want to be drawn on whether Lineker’s Tweet would contravene the new rules.
Perhaps it is the success of rival, less-restricted talk-stations such as Times Radio with their constant preoccupation on ‘opinion’ that has, behind the scenes, influenced the BBC’s decision. Save for the fact that high-profile ‘celebrity’ presenters seem to have held the BBC over a barrel, it is difficult to understand how this new policy can be explained, and almost impossible to imagine how it may be implemented.
The question now is – will public broadcasting ever maintain the ascendancy of ‘facts’ over the opinion of those seeking to present them?
*
*
Advertisements appearing within or at the foot of this post are placed by the platform, not the writer. They are neither endorsed nor monetarised.
*
Ageing Effortlessly 