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.