MOTD

[Rory]

I'm sorry but I'm not f**king happy about my favourite MOTD thread being turned in to the film review section. Do you think you're all Mark bastard Kermode? Every time I go on a thread nowadays people always end up harping on about how good the Godfather is, it's f**king tiring .

I think I'm in about the 0.01% of people who isn't bothered about the Godfather. Watched it once and just thought 'it was alright... wouldn't watch it again'. Just for a bit of that balance we all yearn for.

I genuinely hate pun fests though, they are a scourge on this forum and anyone participating should face lengthy bans. Bloody intolerant lefties, ay.

Mods, can we please ban this guy? I don't like what he's saying 😉

[edgysatsuma89]

I'm sorry but I'm not f**king happy about my favourite MOTD thread being turned in to the film review section. Do you think you're all Mark bastard Kermode? Every time I go on a thread nowadays people always end up harping on about how good the Godfather is, it's f**king tiring .

I think I'm in about the 0.01% of people who isn't bothered about the Godfather. Watched it once and just thought 'it was alright... wouldn't watch it again'. Just for a bit of that balance we all yearn for.

I genuinely hate pun fests though, they are a scourge on this forum and anyone participating should face lengthy bans. Bloody intolerant lefties, ay.

Mods, can we please ban this guy? I don't like what he's saying 😉

😁

I did feel a little liberated saying I'm not bothered about The Godfather, I usually keep my fat mouth shut because I know absolutely no-one agrees with me. *runs off and watches Cocaine Bear instead*

[Rory]

I'm sorry but I'm not f**king happy about my favourite MOTD thread being turned in to the film review section. Do you think you're all Mark bastard Kermode? Every time I go on a thread nowadays people always end up harping on about how good the Godfather is, it's f**king tiring .

I think I'm in about the 0.01% of people who isn't bothered about the Godfather. Watched it once and just thought 'it was alright... wouldn't watch it again'. Just for a bit of that balance we all yearn for.

I genuinely hate pun fests though, they are a scourge on this forum and anyone participating should face lengthy bans. Bloody intolerant lefties, ay.

Mods, can we please ban this guy? I don't like what he's saying 😉

😁

I did feel a little liberated saying I'm not bothered about The Godfather, I usually keep my fat mouth shut because I know absolutely no-one agrees with me. *runs off and watches Cocaine Bear instead*

I'm aware this makes me sound like a total ******, but when it comes to art there are no right or wrong opinions, there are only responses.

If nobody agrees with you about the Godfather, it doesn't mean you're wrong. I think both parts 1 & 2 are brilliant, but I prefer 1 and nobody I know agrees with me!

Anyway, erm, MOTD... yeah.

[Hookeysmith]

OK  sorry I dared to have an opinion.

I'll know better next time

Hookey old lad, if you can't see that this position puts you and Lineker in exactly the same - small? - boat then you should return your ironymeter to Alaniss Morrisette asap.

Patronising git (winky thing)

[Bad English]

I think I'm in about the 0.01% of people who isn't bothered about the Godfather.

I genuinely hate pun fests though, they are a scourge on this forum and anyone participating should face lengthy bans.

Leave the pun; talk about the goalie.

[Percy McCarthy]

According to ITN, 500,000 more people watched yesterday's MOTD than last week.

I suspect that wouldn't have been the case if it was as simple as some other presenter standing in for Lineker. I haven't watched MoTD in years and I genuinely don't think I've ever watched it when Villa haven't played, but even I was tempted to watch last night, just to see how they managed to structure a programme with no presenters or summarisers.

In the end I watched Godfather part 3, instead.

What did you think?

EDIT: forget it, saw your later post. Agree about Andy Garcia being good in it.

[Rodders]

OK  sorry I dared to have an opinion.

I'll know better next time

Hookey old lad, if you can't see that this position puts you and Lineker in exactly the same - small? - boat then you should return your ironymeter to Alaniss Morrisette asap.

Patronising git (winky thing)

You've been talking to my wife...

[lovejoy]

The idea of impartiality on the BBC is impossible to achieve. Clint Eastwood is a prominent republican, if one of his films is on should the BBC edit him out? People watching the BBC don’t know/care about the way those on screen I are employed either directly or indirectly (the Lineker vs Alan Sugar debate) so impartiality is difficult to apply there.

In my opinion the answer is simple - if you do a politics related show you can’t make your political views known in the show and all presenters should use private social media to say whatever they like and have a bbc branded account fir the programme related stuff (eg MOTD running order). The fact that the chair of the BBC isn’t impartial means he should stand down as it undermines the impartial ethos all together.

Finally I’d the BBC is impartial why dont we hear views on the Ukraine conflict from the Russian perspective? It’s selective impartiality they apply always to show the government positively.

[Ian.]

I’ve never seen the Godfather. Is that bad?

[Percy McCarthy]

I’ve never seen the Godfather. Is that bad?

It’s not bad for you, I’m jealous.

Donnie Brasco is great as well, as are other true story ones - Goodfellas, Casino, Gotti (1996 HBO version - not the Travolta one). Witness to the Mob is underrated IMO. The last two are available on YouTube.

[Ads]

The idea of impartiality on the BBC is impossible to achieve. Clint Eastwood is a prominent republican, if one of his films is on should the BBC edit him out? People watching the BBC don’t know/care about the way those on screen I are employed either directly or indirectly (the Lineker vs Alan Sugar debate) so impartiality is difficult to apply there.

In my opinion the answer is simple - if you do a politics related show you can’t make your political views known in the show and all presenters should use private social media to say whatever they like and have a bbc branded account fir the programme related stuff (eg MOTD running order). The fact that the chair of the BBC isn’t impartial means he should stand down as it undermines the impartial ethos all together.

Finally I’d the BBC is impartial why dont we hear views on the Ukraine conflict from the Russian perspective? It’s selective impartiality they apply always to show the government positively.

Impartiality is only really important for the information services of the BBC. I think sometimes the BBC can get the balance wrong in its attempts to find balance by giving the alternative view an equal platform that is perhaps disproportionate to the balance of the argument. That's why I don't think there's any sincere criticism possible of the BBC position on Ukraine; last year it provided Putin's historical fatalism ideology as one of the motivating factors, there's not a great deal else to be said or a need for that unnatural and disproportionate balance.

In terms of the entertainment elements, if they're employees then I don't see why that impartiality needs to be particularly enforced. Lineker has his views on politics and the world and its not something, beyond Qatar perhaps, that he talks about of MotD when introducing a game or putting questions to Shrearer et al. It's just not relevant and doesn't come up.

His views on social media are what they are. Sincerely held, he clearly knows little to nothing about history (not surprising given he spent a good deal of his childhood with the market stall and watching his parents playing cards, while also playing football for hours on end) and probably isn't a resource anybody would use in a serious conversation. But then nor is he trying to be. He's a man with an audience and a lot of followers, so has more responsibility as a result, but that he's been catapulted into this position is more out of a desire for Culture Warriors on both sides to fight over entrenched positions on a very weird website.

The BBC seems very good at making itself the story at times.

[Nii Lamptey]

Funny how the Lineker thing has taken ALL the limelight across media and social media channels. The actual migrant bill itself, Hancock's What'sApp messages and general Tory incompetence seem to have vanished into the ether  as a result - Fancy that??

Standard Tory tactics, similar to the dog from Pixar's Up - SQUIRREL!

[Rodders]

I’ve never seen the Godfather. Is that bad?

Me also. Nor Goodfellas.  I don't even like pizza.

[TonyD]

I’d be quite happy if he never came back on the BBC.
He has been there too long.
Need some fresh people. 

[paul_e]

The idea of impartiality on the BBC is impossible to achieve. Clint Eastwood is a prominent republican, if one of his films is on should the BBC edit him out? People watching the BBC don’t know/care about the way those on screen I are employed either directly or indirectly (the Lineker vs Alan Sugar debate) so impartiality is difficult to apply there.

In my opinion the answer is simple - if you do a politics related show you can’t make your political views known in the show and all presenters should use private social media to say whatever they like and have a bbc branded account fir the programme related stuff (eg MOTD running order). The fact that the chair of the BBC isn’t impartial means he should stand down as it undermines the impartial ethos all together.

Finally I’d the BBC is impartial why dont we hear views on the Ukraine conflict from the Russian perspective? It’s selective impartiality they apply always to show the government positively.

Impartiality is only really important for the information services of the BBC. I think sometimes the BBC can get the balance wrong in its attempts to find balance by giving the alternative view an equal platform that is perhaps disproportionate to the balance of the argument. That's why I don't think there's any sincere criticism possible of the BBC position on Ukraine; last year it provided Putin's historical fatalism ideology as one of the motivating factors, there's not a great deal else to be said or a need for that unnatural and disproportionate balance.

In terms of the entertainment elements, if they're employees then I don't see why that impartiality needs to be particularly enforced. Lineker has his views on politics and the world and its not something, beyond Qatar perhaps, that he talks about of MotD when introducing a game or putting questions to Shrearer et al. It's just not relevant and doesn't come up.

His views on social media are what they are. Sincerely held, he clearly knows little to nothing about history (not surprising given he spent a good deal of his childhood with the market stall and watching his parents playing cards, while also playing football for hours on end) and probably isn't a resource anybody would use in a serious conversation. But then nor is he trying to be. He's a man with an audience and a lot of followers, so has more responsibility as a result, but that he's been catapulted into this position is more out of a desire for Culture Warriors on both sides to fight over entrenched positions on a very weird website.

The BBC seems very good at making itself the story at times.

You keep repeating this bit but I think you're misreading his post to get to that conclusion:

There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?

that a 47 word post, not a thorough analysis of the rise of naziism in 1930s Germany.

He's correct that there is no huge influx.
He's correct on the number of refugees we take.
He's correct that the policy is cruel and directed at very vulnerable people.

So the entire point of contention that you keep going back to is "language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s" but you seem to be taking that in a specific way and inferring a lot more into it than you should be.

He didn't compare the government to Nazis.
He didn't say the policy was fascist.
He didn't claim refugees are being treated the same as jews were in the 30s.
He didn't imply in any way that this will lead to anything further.

He simply said the language isn't dissimilar to that of the time. That's a really fucking low bar, literally any document from 1930s Germany referring to Jews as a plague/invasion/animals/etc or as a problem the country needed to address urgently is enough to prove him right and finding examples like that doesn't take long.

Maybe he didn't have to make the comparison and maybe it can lead to misinformation amongst his followers but if that's a problem then it's no worse than the misinformation that is coming from the government about immigration.