UPDATED for PM Bulletin:
We knew that a deal was in the offing and it has duly arrived with peace breaking out at the BBC and a ‘review of social media guidelines’ underway.
It is unlikely given the turmoil of the last week that this will become any more onerous on those outside of the news bubble but it will also have other media outlets, and sponsoring brands, checking out their own positions.
The important thing if the peace though was that, in line with what we write this morning, Gary Lineker did double down on his original point about refugees.
“After a surreal few days, I’m delighted that we have navigated a way through this. I want to thank you all for the incredible support, particularly my colleagues at BBC Sport, for the remarkable show of solidarity. Football is a team game but their backing was overwhelming.
“I have been presenting sport on the BBC for almost 3 decades and am immeasurably proud to work with the best and fairest broadcaster in the world. I cannot wait to get back in the MOTD chair on Saturday. A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away.
“It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you.”
That in a nutshell is far more important than the handling of a social media crisis and for that Gary Lineker commands our full respect.
*********
At a time when the war in Ukraine still rages, the cost of living crisis still makes living tough at the most basic of levels and when the British Government policy on repatriating refugees remains a national policy, the news cycle was engulfed this weekend with the right of a football presenter to tweet an opinion.
The Gary Lineker story took full flight on Friday when he was suspended and was followed out the door in solidarity by his co-presenters, commentators, and other BBC Sport staff.
The weekend staples of Match of the Day, Football Focus, and even Final Score gave way to repeats of old crime series and hollowed out shadows of their former selves.
The actual anger over the original policy was swept aside by anger over a football pundit’s right to engage on social media.
Both are important but the respective rage and acres of coverage given to the one over the other has been bizarre.
Freedom of speech is a vital part of what it means to live in a civilised society, but to argue it is under greater threat in this instance than the right to live in safety betrays a somewhat skewed moral compass in the political life of our near neighbour.
That said, we are writing about it now and so adding to that impbalance but our remit is to cover sport rather than politics, in these pages, and so it is today rather than last week that it becomes news.
The front sports page of one national newspaper in Ireland yesterday felt we needed to know about Eamon Dunphy’s view that he would not have been supported by his colleagues if he had taken a similar stance back in the day. Sometimes the story runs away on itself just a little.
It is good nevertheless that the question of partiality in the media is front and centre stage. The history of the restrictions introduced at the BBC dates back to the leadership of Margaret Thatcher who, long before the days of social media, spotted that it was important for journalists not to mix up support for striking miners with their duty to report fact. There is something depressing in that 40 years on it is still her party that is standing in the line of sight of commentators.
The BBC is to Britain what RTÉ is to Ireland and it is right that Micheál Lehane should not be tweeting any support he might personally feel for Leo Varadkar or Mary Lou McDonald, but where would we stand if a similar position was to be taken by Des Cahill, Jacqui Hurley or Darragh Moloney?
There is little chance of that question needing to be answered as we tend to stay in our lanes here and we are also a much less divided society than is currently the case in Britain or especially in the United States.
Gary Lineker has a history of stepping into the realm of public debate, and being pulled for it now as opposed to in broadly similar cases in the past is an error of extremne misjudgement on the part of BBC leadership that now looks much more likely to lose out in this.
It is worth saying though that freedom of speech has to cut both ways.
In order to allow a voice to those on one side of an argument, we have to do the same on the other, as unpalatable as it may seem.
Thankfully Enoch Burke and those of similar views are not media personalities in their working life but what if they were? What if he or a member of his family was an analyst on Mayo GAA’s past, present or future? Where is the line in terms of free comment and free speech?
The unpalatable truth is that we have to give that right to those with whom we disagree as much as we have to allow those who share our broad society world view.
Mosr right thinking people (accepting my own bias in that statement) would support Gary Lineker’s case here. But should we not feel a little uncomfortable that we are more exercised about his right than those landing on a foreign shore with only their story call their own?
