O/T:-Gary Lineker

[jackal2]

Why is it impossible to be "impartial"? The BBC should not need to have a view on anything. It can present facts and if opinions are to be broadcast they should be informed opinions from both sides of the debate. The fact that it has got itself in this mess is indicative of poor governance and management combined with a desire to be partial.

It could have taken this opportunity to bring more informed debate by inviting Lineker and those who support opposing views to the TV screens for a lively discussion. Instead it tries to impose censorship on someone who was not representing the BBC in his opinions. Totally p1ssed off with this cancel culture.

Old_pie make no mistake, I hate the cancel culture regardless of who is getting cancelled, and I agree with you that the governance at the BBC has been poor for decades, but I think that's a cultural problem not unrelated to its archaic operating and funding model.

My point about it being impossible to be impartial is the broader one (philosophical, if you like) that nobody sees the world from an impartial position. Every time you open your eyes in the morning and watch what's happening in the world, either directly or already through someone else's filter, you're making your own conscious or sub-conscious interpretation of it. Every time you 'present facts' on a subject, you will make an editorial decision on which facts are relevant or irrelevant, important or not important, and those decisions are subjective. The moment the human brain gets involved, bias comes into play, and it influences everything we do, sometimes obviously, sometimes subtly.