O/T:- So who prefers MOTD without pundits etc now?

[BigFatPie]

Speaking with various people I've heard this opinion more than any other over the past couple of days.

The BBC has no legitimate reason to pay Gary Lineker and the likes of Shearer, Wright and Richards the ridiculous amount of public money they do to needlessly chit-chat between matches. The BBC currently enjoys a privileged position courtesy of their Royal Charter which is supposed to remove the need for them to compete with other channels, so why do they need such 'big names' at such huge cost, especially if many viewers feel they could do without presenters (if not commentators) at all?

Let's face it, the BBC these days largely acts like a commercial channel, and they're as obsessed as all the others with getting the highest ratings and attracting 'prestige' names (such as they are!), so it's time for them to operate properly and fairly in that market on the same terms as the other broadcasters.

They do ‘operate properly and fairly in the market on the same terms as other broadcasters’. That’s why they’ve got to pay Lineker well otherwise he’d go elsewhere. He probably will now anyway, so the opponents of public service broadcasting will get their way eventually.

It’s hilarious how the free speech absolutists pretend that they don’t mind Lineker or anyone else saying what they like but what they’ve now decided is that they don’t really like the chat about var after a game.

[jackal2]

They do ‘operate properly and fairly in the market on the same terms as other broadcasters’.

Except that the BBC can legally demand money with menaces, while other broadcasters sell advertising or attract subscribers.

It’s hilarious how the free speech absolutists pretend that they don’t mind Lineker or anyone else saying what they like but what they’ve now decided is that they don’t really like the chat about var after a game.

My view is still that Lineker should be able to Tweet his opinion and should only be subject to impartiality rules when presenting a BBC programme. As other posters have illustrated with various examples, it's practically impossible to enforce a rule where people employed by the BBC must be impartial in all aspects of their lives, including on their own social media channels.


I've noticed that every time a poster expresses a view that doesn't fit with your stereotype of who you think they are and what you think they should think, you tell them "that's not what you really think", then you replace it with your opinion of what they think, and then you argue with that rather than what they actually said. I must say, it's an ingenious way of only ever engaging with the world on your own terms!