The social media impartiality rules only apply to those involved in news and current affairs, sports journalism and factual journalism production. Other than senior management, other employees don't have to comply.
Really ....... !!!!!???? https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/personal-use-of-social-media Everyone who works for the BBC should ensure their activity on social media platforms does not compromise the perception of or undermine the impartiality and reputation of the BBC, nor their own professional impartiality or reputation and/or otherwise undermine trust in the BBC.
And this becomes a serious issue in a world where even the existence of some groups of people is allowed to be considered "a political issue"
There is legitimate debate around single-sex spaces, prisons, and sports as legislative changes are made. Many of those participating in debates will argue that acknowledging the existence of biological sex is not the same as denying someone's existence, and that claim is a straw man used to silence valid concerns.
You ( and I) may legitimately disagree, but it is far from a settled political matter, particularly given recent court rulings.
There seems to be as many people claiming that the BBC is biased towards the right as there are people saying that it is biased towards the left.
This, to me, means they are getting the balance just right.
That's first and last time I will comment about anything slightly political on these forums
As someone who worked more than 30 years for the BBC, I never once thought during my career that I was required to be impartial and neutral on matters of compassion vs hate or good vs evil. Seems like these are different times.
The social media impartiality rules only apply to those involved in news and current affairs, sports journalism and factual journalism production. Other than senior management, other employees don't have to comply. It seems Ince wanted to use his (presumably well paid) platform as a BBC factual presenter to promote his views on political issues. I wonder how people would have felt if a news presenter decided to side with Tommy Robinson on social media.
The rules are pretty much common sense. and include:
Do not reveal how you vote or express support for any political party.
Do not express a view on any policy which is a matter of current political debate or on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other 'controversial subject'.
Do not offer judgements beyond your specialism.
Do not support campaigns, (eg. by using hashtags) no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial.
Yet we recently witnessed a BBC TV news presenter (who got to keep her job) making her views on a controversial subject live on air during the bulletin!
Well indeed, and she was found to have broken the rules.
As with any employer, you aren't necessarily automatically fired for breaking an employment policy.
This is the second time that Croxall has done it. The first time I would have expected her to have received a verbal warning, this second time a written warning and if it happens again i'd expect dismissal.
Personally I think moaning about a thing that's the code of employment is a little entitled!
I think the issue here is that Robin Ince is a "comedian, actor and writer" (Wikipedia) and the BBC are treating him as a journalist when he considers himself to be an entertainment presenter, who would be covered by the "all other BBC staff or freelancers" rules. My understanding (which could be wrong) ias that he is billed as a comedian on the programme, not as a journalist.
I think describing him as "entitled" for wanting to express his views in public is unfair. You could similarly argue that everyone who expresses an opinion on this forum (mysef included) is "entitled". Perhaps we are!
Personally I think moaning about a thing that's the code of employment is a little entitled!
I think the issue here is that Robin Ince is a "comedian, actor and writer" (Wikipedia) and the BBC are treating him as a journalist when he considers himself to be an entertainment presenter, who would be covered by the "all other BBC staff or freelancers" rules. My understanding (which could be wrong) ias that he is billed as a comedian on the programme, not as a journalist.
I think describing him as "entitled" for wanting to express his views in public is unfair. You could similarly argue that everyone who expresses an opinion on this forum (mysef included) is "entitled". Perhaps we are!
It seems that the rules apply to entertainment presenters as well. Carol Vorderman was an entertainment presenter on Radio Wales, and there was no political element involved in her Saturday show.
As someone who worked more than 30 years for the BBC, I never once thought during my career that I was required to be impartial and neutral on matters of compassion vs hate or good vs evil. Seems like these are different times.
The social media impartiality rules only apply to those involved in news and current affairs, sports journalism and factual journalism production. Other than senior management, other employees don't have to comply. It seems Ince wanted to use his (presumably well paid) platform as a BBC factual presenter to promote his views on political issues. I wonder how people would have felt if a news presenter decided to side with Tommy Robinson on social media.
The rules are pretty much common sense. and include:
Do not reveal how you vote or express support for any political party.
Do not express a view on any policy which is a matter of current political debate or on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other 'controversial subject'.
Do not offer judgements beyond your specialism.
Do not support campaigns, (eg. by using hashtags) no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial.
Yet we recently witnessed a BBC TV news presenter (who got to keep her job) making her views on a controversial subject live on air during the bulletin!
Well indeed, and she was found to have broken the rules.
As with any employer, you aren't necessarily automatically fired for breaking an employment policy.
This is the second time that Croxall has done it. The first time I would have expected her to have received a verbal warning, this second time a written warning and if it happens again i'd expect dismissal.
Well I'm sure we all benefit from your apparent knowledge as an employment law expert of some kind.
The issue Ince has is that most employers would take a dim view of expressing support for proscribed terrorist organisations on a public social media account.
My employer would have me out the door and I don’t have a radio show on a public broadcaster.
There would be outrage if a BBC presenter praised Reform on Twitter, so I don’t see why he expects to be any different.
Comments
There is legitimate debate around single-sex spaces, prisons, and sports as legislative changes are made. Many of those participating in debates will argue that acknowledging the existence of biological sex is not the same as denying someone's existence, and that claim is a straw man used to silence valid concerns.
You ( and I) may legitimately disagree, but it is far from a settled political matter, particularly given recent court rulings.
This, to me, means they are getting the balance just right.
That's first and last time I will comment about anything slightly political on these forums
This is the second time that Croxall has done it. The first time I would have expected her to have received a verbal warning, this second time a written warning and if it happens again i'd expect dismissal.
I think the issue here is that Robin Ince is a "comedian, actor and writer" (Wikipedia) and the BBC are treating him as a journalist when he considers himself to be an entertainment presenter, who would be covered by the "all other BBC staff or freelancers" rules. My understanding (which could be wrong) ias that he is billed as a comedian on the programme, not as a journalist.
I think describing him as "entitled" for wanting to express his views in public is unfair. You could similarly argue that everyone who expresses an opinion on this forum (mysef included) is "entitled". Perhaps we are!
It seems that the rules apply to entertainment presenters as well. Carol Vorderman was an entertainment presenter on Radio Wales, and there was no political element involved in her Saturday show.
Well I'm sure we all benefit from your apparent knowledge as an employment law expert of some kind.
My employer would have me out the door and I don’t have a radio show on a public broadcaster.
There would be outrage if a BBC presenter praised Reform on Twitter, so I don’t see why he expects to be any different.