The BBC, Gary Lineker and "I am Sportacus" – the importance of knowing where your nearest exit is

The BBC’s Gary Lineker issue (and it is the BBC’s issue, not Gary Lineker’s, nor, frustratingly, even the government’s anymore) is a perfect example of why you always need to know where your nearest exits are and your quickest route to them.

How did we get here?

It’s been one of the most rapid and impactful escalations of an issue ever seen, thanks to the swift and bold “I am Sportacus” actions (wish I could take credit for that, but alas no, credit: Adam Rutherford) of Lineker’s BBC Sport colleagues, stepping down from football coverage across the board.

There’s an element of perfect timing, as there so often is when a story snowballs like this: by happening just before the weekend, pundits, presenters and commentators had to act decisively and quickly (meaning that you are always going to act more on emotion) and the BBC had no time to mitigate, meaning the actions had huge and instant impact as they played out in public view – the 5Live schedule was changing by the minute as key presenters Colin Murray and Mark Chapman boldly chose not to present their flagship shows on Saturday.

Additionally, the weekend traditionally has “less” news than the week – parliament isn’t sitting, politicians aren’t usually making speeches, courts aren’t in session, companies aren’t making announcements, the stock markets are closed, there’s fewer journalists at their desks - so if there’s been no natural disasters or major crimes, the weekend news agenda is typically limited to smaller stories and planned political messaging i.e. government “leaks” (aka policy previews) in the Sunday papers and controlled messaging in the Sunday political shows interviews. It will have suited the government perfectly to have stepped back from their usual weekend activities this weekend and let the BBC eat itself instead! ?

The other reason this story has dominated news bulletins for so many days is that holy grail of communications: “how do we make normal people care about this?” Whether or not football is on the TV and which national treasure ex-footballer is presenting it is going to hit people where they care: football and the BBC are two things with which millions of people in the UK have a life-long personal and emotional relationship with. Add in how much the media likes to report on itself (schadenfreude from other outlets and apprehension that they need to be seen not be ignoring it from BBC news outlets), sprinkle with celebrities, and a side of a perennially hot (and frequently misunderstood) partisan topic, and it’s no wonder this has captured the interest of the nation.

What happens next?

So how do the BBC move this forward and break the deadlock? Lineker isn't going to change his views or behaviour or apologise and it's becoming increasingly clear he doesn't need to, for several reasons.

The days that it took the BBC to act on his tweet, coming only after the likes of the Daily Mail, the more extreme ends of the Conservative party and the typical right-wing talking heads called for action, adds more fuel to the fire that the BBC’s move was the result of pressure from those parties and / via the already-compromised BBC Chairman Richard Sharp.

Twitter has the receipts that show the BBC has been disproportionate in expecting Lineker to kowtow his views when they haven't with anyone else: responses to past complaints about other presenters including Chris Packham and Andrew Neil show the BBC refuting any criticism of those individuals passionately sharing their views on social media, with the BBC claiming a clear distinction between presenters having personal views vs their BBC work.

The BBC therefore now has two choices for how this plays out:

Option one, they choose to stand by their actions, but that means that they will now have to apply that universally across the board forever more. This is not only highly impractical – the BBC employs thousands of people, not to mention the multitudes more employed on freelance basis and via hundreds of independent production companies – but it is going to make them look even more like the thought-police, and doesn't reflect changes in societal norms with the prevalence of opinions and views in the era of ubiquitous social media discourse.

Crucially, it will likely mean that they lose a lot of their top talent who decide they favour being allowed to have their own views in their personal time over working for the BBC. Let’s not forget that it is primarily the ‘prestige’ of the BBC which retains a lot of the big names, with the BBC’s role and reputation making up for commercially-uncompetitive salaries compared to what those individuals could likely be earning at some other outlets. But where is the prestige if the BBC continues to tank its reputation and faces increasing accusations of being a government mouthpiece?

This leaves only option two: to u-turn out of it. They have laid themselves a little bit of a path for doing this in the original statement from Friday, which said Lineker would be off air “until we've got an agreed and clear position on his use of social media”, although the rest of the statement unequivocally lay the responsibility at Lineker’s feet, it didn't expressly set the parameters for his return.

Director General Tim Davie hinted at a more conciliatory route in a television interview with BBC News on Saturday, agreeing that maybe the guidelines aren't as clear as they could be and could need reviewing, along with repeatedly stating that he was listening, indicating that he is aware of the inconsistent past applications of the approach and the impossibility of consistency going forward, as well as the (seeming majority) public view of disdain at the BBC's moves. (As an aside, for all his faults, the “sorry” part of Davie’s interview was at least an excellent example of how to actually give a genuine-sounding, straightforward, personally accountable and non-conditional apology – he used the words “I am sorry” multiple times, making it clear what he was sorry for without the usual corporate / political trick of using the more formal “we apologise if…” or being tempted to add a defensive “but” which instantly makes apologies sound disingenuous.)

Against a backdrop of increasing media competition, particularly with non-linear and non-traditional media amongst younger generations, and off the back of the increasing pressure over recent years on the licence fee, with successive Culture Ministers and Cabinet Ministers planting seeds of doubt as to the BBC's funding future, the BBC cannot rely on a governing Conservative party to have their back in the long-term, no matter how close the relationships between aspects of the BBC board and the party. It therefore can't risk alienating what has, until now, largely been its core audience (middle England) and most vociferous defenders (liberal media and the left-leaning populace). A u-turn therefore now seems inevitable.

Look out for a reference a revision of the guidance to reflect the changing ways we all use social media, and a symbolic but empty comment about Gary understanding he needs to keep his views separate from his BBC work (as he always has anyway) to smooth over the obviousness of the backtracking somewhat.

Hopefully this will come sooner rather than later so that the debate can get back to where it should be – a discussion on political viewpoints and policy, with the government and ministers, not our football coverage and sports commentators, at the centre of it.