Case Study: Gary Lineker Vs BBC
Gary Lineker Twitter image: BBC HQ, London, UK, March 2023. Quotation from George Orwell
Many international news agencies picked up on a dispute that emerged last week between the BBC, the UK’s public service broadcaster, and a sports personality and presenter, Gary Lineker. What was extraordinary about this story is the overwhelming support from Lineker’s sports industry colleagues that effectively silenced football (soccer) coverage by the BBC over this past weekend. It also brought into sharp focus the editorial independence of a broadcasting institution. This situation poses fundamental questions about power relationships in the workplace. Let’s break it down:
What Happened?
Last week the UK government, through the office of the Home Secretary Suella Braverman, announced a new policy towards asylum seekers arriving by boat on UK shores. It involved a revocation of several legal rights - including removing protection from modern slavery - and a promise to return refugees, although to where is unclear, with a lifetime ban from re-entering the UK. The policy was widely condemned by international and national human rights bodies and its legal status questioned.
Lineker posted a video of Braverman’s speech in the House of Commons with the comment “Appalling”. His is a lively Twitter feed (8.9M followers) and in response to a person challenging his view Lineker wrote “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s.” The implied reference to Nazism brought wolf-whistle condemnation by right wing politicians and some on the left. The BBC’s response to media questioning was that they would “talk to Gary”. When asked by the media whether he regretted his Tweet his reply was that those with a platform have a duty to speak for those who have no voice. After a day of political outrage Lineker was suspended from his BBC role with some calling for his sacking and pointing to BBC guidance on social media activity for employees and presenters issued by BBC Director General, Tim Davie a few months before. The BBC had the momentum and held the power - or so they thought.
Commenters on social media identified BBC presenters who had previously expressed support for government policies and that had received no impartiality censure, implying the BBC’s impartiality goalposts were highly mobile. Other sports presenters, pundits and commentators withdrew their services from the BBC for the weekend. Several sports shows were cancelled from the schedule at short notice and flagship show Match of The Day went ahead without commentary, presentation or analysis. Lineker remained silent, the power balance was shifting.
Support for Lineker took everyone by surprise, not least the BBC and Lineker supporters began to win the share of voice over detractors with #GarylinekerSpeaksForMe and #IStandWithGaryLineker. The BBC entered into negotiations with Lineker and his legal representatives. The power was now with Lineker and the BBC needed resolution.
Where is the Confusion?
The BBC has been concerned that news presenters and political commentators’ social media activity was compromising impartiality in news output. Davie’s social media use policy for BBC employees was initially seen as an important clarification. Contract staff, however, operate from individually negotiated contracts and whether policy changes can be applied to them was described by the BBC as “a gray area”, perhaps one that should have been clarified earlier.
What Went Wrong ?
The BBC clearly came under considerable political pressure to quieten Gary Lineker. His comment on Twitter was innocuous by Twitter standards and wouldn’t normally qualify for suspension under the BBC’s own employee policies, even if it applied. Why was the government so concerned about this tweet? Well, UK refugee policy is controversial and sits on a delicate legal knife edge. The government is under pressure to reduce or stop refugees seeking entry to the country via unconventional routes under a policy banner of “Stop The Boats”, claiming their target is people smugglers and not the refugees. Yet the policy is broadly interpreted as inhumane and not addressing that issue. Lineker’s large social media following and his broad popularity as a TV personality mean that his voice carries weight. MP’s issued extreme statements that accused Lineker of holocaust denial and anti-semitism, a position not supported by the leading Jewish organizations and few others.
The impact on the country’s most popular sports show took the government and the BBC by surprise and someone was going to have to step back. With strong support on social media and through colleagues, plus his wealth and media market value it didn’t need to be Lineker. He could wait it out. His silence was profound and gave him total control.
What Could Have Been Done
Davie should have taken legal advice on who it applied to when introducing his new policy and clarified that internally and externally. When the story broke the BBC should not have confidently claimed that policies applied to Lineker, which then became “a gray area”.
The BBC took an enormous reputation risk in order to maintain government support. The government defines the BBC’s charter for broadcasting and sets budgets through the raising of a broadcast ‘license fee’ tax on viewers. This acquiescence challenged the BBC’s editorial and broadcasting independence. To sack Lineker would be a massive “own goal” and many other sports broadcasters have indicated that they would resign in solidarity. The announcement of an independent review of their social media policy buys them little time and the reinstatement of Lineker was inevitable. Where to now - how does the BBC rebalance the power dynamic?
The simplest response from the BBC would have been to issue a statement such as, “Gary Lineker’s opinions are entirely his own. He is contracted to the BBC for sports presentation. He does not claim to speak on behalf of the BBC. As a news organization we remain impartial on all matters relating to government policy. We recognize the depth of feeling on this issue but all other questions should be referred to Gary Lineker and his representatives.” This is consistent with past BBC response to criticism of bias by presenters away from the screen. If questioned on BBC social media policy they could have said, “BBC policies are directed at employees of the corporation. As a contractor Mr Lineker has a separate contract that recognizes his independence, but we would not expect him to make political comment as part of his broadcast role. In this case he did not.”
Always understand your legal risk or the cost could be considerable. Policy changes post-contract normally have to be mutually agreed and not assumed to automatically apply, especially for an external broadcast/talent contract. The BBC’s subsequent reinstatement of Lineker is hazy at best, and the policy remains vague. Power balance is important and needs to be understood before battle lines are drawn, that didn’t happen here.
The communications strategies of organizations should always assert independence, acknowledge the issue but resist commenting or announcing action before a review. Buying time is essential if a tweet about tone of voice isn’t going to result in the literal silencing of a great organ of broadcasting.
