Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   The BBC issues new social media rules. It's much less British Broadcasting, much more Company   (bbc.com) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

408 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 29 Oct 2020 at 1:50 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



19 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-29 12:56:18 PM  
New rule: Do not have say you have an opinion on anything, do not even put an emoji next to anything, and please disclose all the money you make from any source to the general public. Let them see your checkbook basically and all your financial books. So yeah, are we good?

If I worked for the BBC I would be like "How about no? Does no work for you?"
 
2020-10-29 1:59:56 PM  
You do of course realize that "Company" is an anagram of "MOPY CAN", right?
 
2020-10-29 2:00:06 PM  
Fascism comes to the Beeb.

In five years, it won't even exist (same for the NHS).
 
2020-10-29 2:05:31 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-29 2:09:27 PM  
Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.
 
2020-10-29 2:23:34 PM  
When he took over from Tony Hall at the beginning of September, Mr Davie told staff he wanted to renew the BBC's "commitment to impartiality".
"If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC," he said.


No mention of nudity, though, so naughty bits ahoy!
 
2020-10-29 2:27:30 PM  

Walker: New rule: Do not have say you have an opinion on anything, do not even put an emoji next to anything, and please disclose all the money you make from any source to the general public. Let them see your checkbook basically and all your financial books. So yeah, are we good?

If I worked for the BBC I would be like "How about no? Does no work for you?"


I think it's fine.    You don't like it, don't work for them.

The BBC is doing this in order to help maintain its image of an independent news source.   If you've got people donating all to one cause (*COUGH*NPR*COUGH*), or you're always tweeting stuff from a particularly politician or political party, that's evidence of bias.


*Go ahead, look it up at the FEC website for employers with "National Public Radio" and "NPR" as your search terms.   None of the on-air personnel donated that I can see, but it's all ActBlue, Emily's List, DNC,  Biden for President, etc.  I'd put a link, but it reveals personal information like home addresses, so I won't.
 
2020-10-29 2:59:28 PM  
the part that most sums u the plan FTA:

"If your work requires you to maintain your impartiality, don't express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or 'controversial subjects'."


SO this is a  100%  BBC CYA policy.

If they allowed the public to understand that that person in that job office expected to uphold a specific POV in their actions and decisions for that office, that they in fact ideologically are averse to...


See if a BBC employee could make it real clear that ti is entirely unreasonable to pretend they uphold the duty of their office...

This is CYA.

It is not, don't have an opinion. IT IS do not publicly reveal that it is unreasonable for you to be trusted to fulfill the obligations of your office.
 
2020-10-29 3:03:54 PM  

John the Magnificent: Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.


Actual article:

Employees will be told not to "express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects".

The new guidance on social media will apply to staff whether they are using online platforms professionally or personally.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing.

It also advises staff against using emojis which could reveal an opinion and undercut an otherwise impartial post, and to always assume they are posting publicly even if they have tight security settings.

The guidance states employees should "avoid virtue signalling" and adds: "Remember that your personal brand on social media is always secondary to your responsibility to the BBC."

The BBC will also tell staff to disclose their earnings outside of the corporation on a public database.


So what part was wrong?

You are not allowed to put your opinion about anything on social media (black lives matter, gay rights, nothing about politics or polices, nothing that could be considered "controversial") even on your personal Facebook or Twitter Page. You can't even like a post saying "Black Lives Matter" and you must disclose all your earnings. Who cares about the "intentions". That kind of sh*t wouldn't fly over here at a company. If you let it fly over there you are further into the nanny state than I thought. "Our nanny must protect us from ourselves! We can't seem to support anything. Then we wouldn't be impartial." Spoiler: you aren't. The BBC pretending all its presenters are impartial is a lie and a joke. "You don't see them supporting anything, therefore they don't support anything" . They do. Hiding it doesn't change that.
 
2020-10-29 4:14:25 PM  

Walker: John the Magnificent: Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.

Actual article:

Employees will be told not to "express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects".

The new guidance on social media will apply to staff whether they are using online platforms professionally or personally.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing.

It also advises staff against using emojis which could reveal an opinion and undercut an otherwise impartial post, and to always assume they are posting publicly even if they have tight security settings.

The guidance states employees should "avoid virtue signalling" and adds: "Remember that your personal brand on social media is always secondary to your responsibility to the BBC."

The BBC will also tell staff to disclose their earnings outside of the corporation on a public database.

So what part was wrong?

You are not allowed to put your opinion about anything on social media (black lives matter, gay rights, nothing about politics or polices, nothing that could be considered "controversial") even on your personal Facebook or Twitter Page. You can't even like a post saying "Black Lives Matter" and you must disclose all your earnings. Who cares about the "intentions". That kind of sh*t wouldn't fly over here at a company. If you let it fly over there you are further into the nanny state than I thought. "Our nanny must protect us from ourselves! We can't seem to support anything. Then we wouldn't be impartial." Spoiler: you aren't. The BBC pretending all its presenters are impartial is a lie and a joke. "You don't see them supporting anything, therefore they don't support anything" . They do. Hiding it doesn't change that.


You do understand that, ideally, news is presented impartialy. It's kinda a big deal for journalism
 
2020-10-29 4:31:32 PM  

Walker: New rule: Do not have say you have an opinion on anything, do not even put an emoji next to anything, and please disclose all the money you make from any source to the general public. Let them see your checkbook basically and all your financial books. So yeah, are we good?

If I worked for the BBC I would be like "How about no? Does no work for you?"


Yeah but you are not taking into account just how sweet a long term front-of-cam BBC gig is. Made for life.
 
2020-10-29 5:23:02 PM  

John the Magnificent: Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.


Protecting the delicate fee-fees of white supremacist snowflakes.
 
2020-10-29 5:25:11 PM  

chitownmike: Walker: John the Magnificent: Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.

Actual article:

Employees will be told not to "express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects".

The new guidance on social media will apply to staff whether they are using online platforms professionally or personally.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing.

It also advises staff against using emojis which could reveal an opinion and undercut an otherwise impartial post, and to always assume they are posting publicly even if they have tight security settings.

The guidance states employees should "avoid virtue signalling" and adds: "Remember that your personal brand on social media is always secondary to your responsibility to the BBC."

The BBC will also tell staff to disclose their earnings outside of the corporation on a public database.

So what part was wrong?

You are not allowed to put your opinion about anything on social media (black lives matter, gay rights, nothing about politics or polices, nothing that could be considered "controversial") even on your personal Facebook or Twitter Page. You can't even like a post saying "Black Lives Matter" and you must disclose all your earnings. Who cares about the "intentions". That kind of sh*t wouldn't fly over here at a company. If you let it fly over there you are further into the nanny state than I thought. "Our nanny must protect us from ourselves! We can't seem to support anything. Then we wouldn't be impartial." Spoiler: you aren't. The BBC pretending all its presenters are impartial is a lie and a joke. "You don't see them supporting anything, therefore they don't support anything" . They do. Hiding it doesn't change that.

You do understand that, ideally, news is presented impartialy. It's kinda a big deal for journalism


Don't throw your back out moving those ENTERTAINMENT goal posts.
 
2020-10-29 5:37:00 PM  
They include Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker, who often uses his Twitter feed to comment on non-football matters.

So I assume this means that news presenters can't ever attend a match or wear their favorite club's jersey or kit or whatever they call it, right?
 
2020-10-29 5:40:46 PM  

chitownmike: Walker: John the Magnificent: Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.

Actual article:

Employees will be told not to "express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects".

The new guidance on social media will apply to staff whether they are using online platforms professionally or personally.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing.

It also advises staff against using emojis which could reveal an opinion and undercut an otherwise impartial post, and to always assume they are posting publicly even if they have tight security settings.

The guidance states employees should "avoid virtue signalling" and adds: "Remember that your personal brand on social media is always secondary to your responsibility to the BBC."

The BBC will also tell staff to disclose their earnings outside of the corporation on a public database.

So what part was wrong?

You are not allowed to put your opinion about anything on social media (black lives matter, gay rights, nothing about politics or polices, nothing that could be considered "controversial") even on your personal Facebook or Twitter Page. You can't even like a post saying "Black Lives Matter" and you must disclose all your earnings. Who cares about the "intentions". That kind of sh*t wouldn't fly over here at a company. If you let it fly over there you are further into the nanny state than I thought. "Our nanny must protect us from ourselves! We can't seem to support anything. Then we wouldn't be impartial." Spoiler: you aren't. The BBC pretending all its presenters are impartial is a lie and a joke. "You don't see them supporting anything, therefore they don't support anything" . They do. Hiding it doesn't change that.

You do understand that, ideally, news is presented impartialy. It's kinda a big deal for journalism


Oh, you think there is such a thing as "the plain news" and that choice of events to cover and what not to covered are based on some objective metric. You can't get rid of partiality.

Do we want someone covering Islamic State who has no opinion on the group? No, we want someone who is not a monster but also capable of presenting multiple sides, including IS's 'position.'
 
2020-10-29 8:20:09 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: chitownmike: Walker: John the Magnificent: Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.

Actual article:

Employees will be told not to "express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects".

The new guidance on social media will apply to staff whether they are using online platforms professionally or personally.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing.

It also advises staff against using emojis which could reveal an opinion and undercut an otherwise impartial post, and to always assume they are posting publicly even if they have tight security settings.

The guidance states employees should "avoid virtue signalling" and adds: "Remember that your personal brand on social media is always secondary to your responsibility to the BBC."

The BBC will also tell staff to disclose their earnings outside of the corporation on a public database.

So what part was wrong?

You are not allowed to put your opinion about anything on social media (black lives matter, gay rights, nothing about politics or polices, nothing that could be considered "controversial") even on your personal Facebook or Twitter Page. You can't even like a post saying "Black Lives Matter" and you must disclose all your earnings. Who cares about the "intentions". That kind of sh*t wouldn't fly over here at a company. If you let it fly over there you are further into the nanny state than I thought. "Our nanny must protect us from ourselves! We can't seem to support anything. Then we wouldn't be impartial." Spoiler: you aren't. The BBC pretending all its presenters are impartial is a lie and a joke. "You don't see them supporting anything, therefore they don't support anything" . They do. Hiding it doesn't change that.

You do understand that, ideally, news is presented impartialy. It's kinda a big deal for journalism

Oh, you think there is such a thing as "the plain news" and that choice of events to cover and what not to covered are based on some objective metric. You can't get rid of partiality.

Do we want someone covering Islamic State who has no opinion on the group? No, we want someone who is not a monster but also capable of presenting multiple sides, including IS's 'position.'


I suppose arguing with brownshirts is akin to teaching pigs to sing.
 
2020-10-29 8:41:59 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: AliceBToklasLives: chitownmike: Walker: John the Magnificent: Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.

Actual article:

Employees will be told not to "express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects".

The new guidance on social media will apply to staff whether they are using online platforms professionally or personally.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing.

It also advises staff against using emojis which could reveal an opinion and undercut an otherwise impartial post, and to always assume they are posting publicly even if they have tight security settings.

The guidance states employees should "avoid virtue signalling" and adds: "Remember that your personal brand on social media is always secondary to your responsibility to the BBC."

The BBC will also tell staff to disclose their earnings outside of the corporation on a public database.

So what part was wrong?

You are not allowed to put your opinion about anything on social media (black lives matter, gay rights, nothing about politics or polices, nothing that could be considered "controversial") even on your personal Facebook or Twitter Page. You can't even like a post saying "Black Lives Matter" and you must disclose all your earnings. Who cares about the "intentions". That kind of sh*t wouldn't fly over here at a company. If you let it fly over there you are further into the nanny state than I thought. "Our nanny must protect us from ourselves! We can't seem to support anything. Then we wouldn't be impartial." Spoiler: you aren't. The BBC pretending all its presenters are impartial is a lie and a joke. "You don't see them supporting anything, therefore they don't support anything" . They do. Hiding it doesn't change that.

You do understand that, ideally, news is presented impartialy. It's kinda a big deal for journalism

Oh, you think there is such a thing as "the plain news" and that choice of events to cover and what not to covered are based on some objective metric. You can't get rid of partiality.

Do we want someone covering Islamic State who has no opinion on the group? No, we want someone who is not a monster but also capable of presenting multiple sides, including IS's 'position.'

I suppose arguing with brownshirts is akin to teaching pigs to sing.


That's the point. There shouldn't be a problem with Beeb employees saying anti-fascist stuff and there should not be a problem with them saying "Black Lives Matter." This rule appears to ban them from saying either in public.
 
2020-10-29 11:38:37 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: AliceBToklasLives: chitownmike: Walker: John the Magnificent: Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.

Actual article:

Employees will be told not to "express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects".

The new guidance on social media will apply to staff whether they are using online platforms professionally or personally.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing.

It also advises staff against using emojis which could reveal an opinion and undercut an otherwise impartial post, and to always assume they are posting publicly even if they have tight security settings.

The guidance states employees should "avoid virtue signalling" and adds: "Remember that your personal brand on social media is always secondary to your responsibility to the BBC."

The BBC will also tell staff to disclose their earnings outside of the corporation on a public database.

So what part was wrong?

You are not allowed to put your opinion about anything on social media (black lives matter, gay rights, nothing about politics or polices, nothing that could be considered "controversial") even on your personal Facebook or Twitter Page. You can't even like a post saying "Black Lives Matter" and you must disclose all your earnings. Who cares about the "intentions". That kind of sh*t wouldn't fly over here at a company. If you let it fly over there you are further into the nanny state than I thought. "Our nanny must protect us from ourselves! We can't seem to support anything. Then we wouldn't be impartial." Spoiler: you aren't. The BBC pretending all its presenters are impartial is a lie and a joke. "You don't see them supporting anything, therefore they don't support anything" . They do. Hiding it doesn't change that.

You do understand that, ideally, news is presented impartialy. It's kinda a big deal for journalism

Oh, you think there is such a thing as "the plain news" and that choice of events to cover and what not to covered are based on some objective metric. You can't get rid of partiality.

Do we want someone covering Islamic State who has no opinion on the group? No, we want someone who is not a monster but also capable of presenting multiple sides, including IS's 'position.'

I suppose arguing with brownshirts is akin to teaching pigs to sing.

That's the point. There shouldn't be a problem with Beeb employees saying anti-fascist stuff and there should not be a problem with them saying "Black Lives Matter." This rule appears to ban them from saying either in public.


EXACTLY. JOHN BULL? FINE. TOMMY ROBINSON? GOD BLESS HIM!

Farking, stinking, undeniable FASCISTS.
 
2020-10-30 7:08:38 AM  

Walker: John the Magnificent: Please disregard the above posts.  One is an American and the other may just be a natural idiot.

Then read the article to see what it actually says and what the intentions behind the policy are.

Actual article:

Employees will be told not to "express a personal opinion on matters of public policy, politics, or controversial subjects".

The new guidance on social media will apply to staff whether they are using online platforms professionally or personally.

Guidance will also be issued on avoiding bias through follows, likes, retweeting or other forms of sharing.

It also advises staff against using emojis which could reveal an opinion and undercut an otherwise impartial post, and to always assume they are posting publicly even if they have tight security settings.

The guidance states employees should "avoid virtue signalling" and adds: "Remember that your personal brand on social media is always secondary to your responsibility to the BBC."

The BBC will also tell staff to disclose their earnings outside of the corporation on a public database.

So what part was wrong?

You are not allowed to put your opinion about anything on social media (black lives matter, gay rights, nothing about politics or polices, nothing that could be considered "controversial") even on your personal Facebook or Twitter Page. You can't even like a post saying "Black Lives Matter" and you must disclose all your earnings. Who cares about the "intentions". That kind of sh*t wouldn't fly over here at a company. If you let it fly over there you are further into the nanny state than I thought. "Our nanny must protect us from ourselves! We can't seem to support anything. Then we wouldn't be impartial." Spoiler: you aren't. The BBC pretending all its presenters are impartial is a lie and a joke. "You don't see them supporting anything, therefore they don't support anything" . They do. Hiding it doesn't change that.


The point of hiding it isn't to change it, it's to keep the public from finding out just how skewed to one side of the political spectrum the employees of this publicly-funded entity all are.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.