Nadia Ragozhina
Live reporter

It's been a busy day in the BBC newsroom examining the new report and social media guidelines.

BBC director general Tim Davie declined to say whether Gary Lineker's original social media post comparing UK asylum policy to 1930s Germany would breach the new guidelines, so, as our culture editor Katie Razzall suggests, only time will tell what the new rules mean in practice.

You can read the full story here.

This page was written by Anna Boyd, Ali Abbas Ahmadi, Sam Hancock and Thomas Mackintosh. It was edited by me, Nathan Williams and James FitzGerald.

And a few more points from the new guidance issued today by the BBC.

It says that flagship programme presenters must not:

• Endorse or attack a political party (including parties in government or opposition)
• Criticise the character of individual politicians in the UK
• Comment on any issue that is a matter of political debate during the election period for UK general elections and referendums in any part of the UK
• Take up an official role in campaigning groups or become involved in fundraising for campaigning

The BBC says the policy "recognises the importance of freedom of expression".

Gary Lineker has called the new rules "all very sensible"., external

It's been a busy afternoon here at the BBC with the publication of a new report outlining what high-profile presenters can and can't say about controversial issues on social media.

The new rules were commissioned after a row over Gary Lineker's social media posts, in which he compared the language used by the government over asylum seekers to 1930s Germany.

Here are the main points of the new guidance following a 54-page report by former ITN boss John Hardie:

• BBC employees working in news, current and affairs and factual programming are still bound by strict rules on impartiality on social media
• Freelance presenters outside of news should be free to express their political views but should not "bring the BBC into disrepute"

• But non-news presenters working for "flagship programmes" such as Match of the Day or Strictly Come Dancing now have more specific guidance while their shows are on air - and for a two-week window before and after the series.

John Hardie sets out how the editorial guidelines for presenters outside of news, current affairs and factual journalism affect social media use.

Tim Davie and impartialitypublished at 14:19 British Summer Time 28 September 2023

14:19 BST 28 September 2023

Helena Wilkinson
News correspondent

Image source, PA Media

The BBC’s director general Tim Davie has put impartiality front and centre of his leadership.

He once described it as “sacrosanct”. But social media has made his mission to maintain impartiality standards at the corporation a challenge.

Just weeks after taking on the job three years ago, the BBC boss said he was prepared to sack presenters who made major breaches of impartiality guidelines on social media.

New guidelines followed. Davie said they would make it clear where the lines were.

Since then he has had to grapple with challenges of maintaining impartiality standards on social media. “Culture wars” were also making it harder than ever for the BBC to maintain impartiality, he previously told a committee of MP’s.

Following Gary Lineker’s tweet earlier this year, Davie acknowledged there were “grey areas” in the BBC’s social media rules announced in 2020.

He’ll be determined that today's announcement brings clarity around how the guidance applies, in particular to freelancers working outside news and current affairs.

Lis Howell, former managing editor at Sky News and a retired Professor of journalism at City University, has been looking through John Hardie's report.

She tells the BBC it "reads very well" but "it's still going to be terribly difficult to apply" and is something that's going to be "tested by time".

"It still leaves us with quite a few shades of grey... for example, when does commenting on a policy stop and campaigning for or against a policy start?"

She says we really still don't know whether Lineker's original tweet about asylum policy would have been right or wrong under these guidelines - particularly if he'd said it while Match of the Day wasn't airing.

She welcomes Hardie's promotion of "the idea of civility in public discourse", which she says a lot of people will think is a "really good idea".

Some of you may be wondering what meets the threshold for a show to be considered a flagship programme.

Well, to start with, what the BBC sets out a flagship programme is defined with reference to how regular it is broadcast.

Audience reach and universality on the BBC's broadest services are also taken into consideration.

Finally, the length of time the programme has been established on the BBC is also a factor.

Tim Davie, the BBC director general, says the corporation had a "particular challenge" formulating social media guidance for presenters of flagship programmes - but that this group now has "fixed parameters".

Thomas Mackintosh
Live reporter

And finally, Hardie writes that BBC staff should be encouraged to use social media to engage with contributors and use it to promote BBC content, journalism and information.

He adds: "The BBC, its brands, its staff, its presenters should be exemplars of trust, information and decent behaviour in social media."

Hardie believes there should "a conscious and genuine mission to promote civility of public discourse" but he acknowledges this is "no small ambition"."

He continues: "With 20,000 employees and 5,000 freelancers including 1,000 on-air freelancers, a mission to promote civility of public discourse may seem like herding a million cats.

Thomas Mackintosh
Live reporter

While preparing this report, John Hardie also spoke to agents of high-profile non-news presenters on the BBC.

The report says that they all consistently shared the view that the BBC had "got it wrong" over the Gary Lineker incident.

They feel the situation should have been handled quietly behind closed doors and they "unanimously felt that BBC was wrong to try to prevent non-news presenters from expressing their views on social media".

Hardie adds: "A few made comments along the line that the BBC wants to have its cake and eat it: have talent on arm’s length freelance contracts for specific engagements but then control them like full-time employees."

In his conclusions over freelance staff, Hardie says the BBC's relationships with on-air talent have "evolved dramatically" in the last decade.

"The BBC may put itself at disadvantage in striving to attract the best talent if it insists on controlling [their] ability to publicly engage in issues important to them," Hardie adds.

Thomas Mackintosh
Live reporter

I've been going through the report and here are a few more details on what's in it.

Hardie says all the BBC journalists he spoke with agreed with the mantra: “…when you sign up for a career in BBC broadcast journalism, you understand you leave your personal views at the door.”

But, Hardie notes some younger members of BBC newsroom staff are "frustrated" they are constrained from posting on subjects important to them - very often matters related to "lived experience" or matters of identity.

He adds: "They often express a frustration other parts of BBC’s wider family do not have these constraints, and, as we see time and time again, the complaint that some high-profile talent ‘get away with things we could not'."

At the end of the second section centring on impartiality and social media guidelines, Hardie says it is "reasonable for the BBC to set certain guidance for conduct on social media for those handed ‘the Ming Vases’ of some of the BBC’s most cherished brands".

Katie Razzall
Culture editor

These guidelines are likely to create another problem for the director general. Where is the line between expressing political views and not straying into overt political campaigning?

And what does that mean in practice?

Every time Gary Lineker tweets, will commentators question if he has gone too far?

Would his tweet about likening the government’s language to 1930s Germany go against the new rules?

Tim Davie wouldn’t be drawn on that when I spoke to him earlier. But without that information, it’s difficult to judge what the new rules actually mean.

Only yesterday Gary Lineker was tweeting his opposition to the new Rosebank oil field. He also asked a question of Suella Braverman relating to the issue of refugees, a subject close to his heart.

It appears there is now quite a lot of leeway. These high-profile presenters outside of journalism can express views on issues and policies, including politically contentious topics. But they must not campaign in party politics or for activist organisations, within a two week window either side of their programme’s transmission.

For programmes that are on air weekly for much of the year, this applies for that entire time.

We will only know how Lineker himself interprets the rules the next time he tweets about a political subject. And we will only get clarity on what the new rules actually mean in practice, when we see how the BBC responds.

Earlier, our media and arts correspondent suggested there were still grey areas after the publication of the BBC's new social media guidance.

But in his interview with BBC News, the director general stresses his view that those that delve into the details will “see there is clarity there”.

The “overarching objective”, Tim Davie says, is to find a balance – that the BBC is perceived as “fair and balanced”, and at the same time give some leeway as it is a “creative editorial organisation”.

When questioned about a furore over a social media post by Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker in March - and whether Lineker would now be sacked for such a post - Tim Davie says today represents a "clean slate".

He acknowledges that "that tweet caused a bit of a ruption and a huge debate and clearly there was a difference of opinion about it".

Davie reiterates that the new rules make clear that it's now "out of bounds" to endorse or attack a political party, or criticise the character of individual politicians.

Tim Davie has been speaking to BBC News after the BBC's new social media guidelines were issued, stressing that these provide new clarity.

He says these apply to a “specific group of people” - the presenters of the BBC’s flagship programmes. He acknowledges that "we've had our challenges" around this group.

He expresses his confidence that the rules give that group “fixed” parameters within which they can have opinions on the “issues they want to talk about”.

The BBC is walking a delicate tightropepublished at 12:47 British Summer Time 28 September 2023

12:47 BST 28 September 2023

Katie Razzall
Culture editor

Six months ago the BBC was facing a staffing revolt, its efforts to clamp down on Gary Lineker rebounding disastrously.

The Hardie review was a key part of a strategy to take the heat out of the story.

And whilst these guidelines apply to lots of presenters of high profile shows, there is no mistaking that these rules are largely about dealing with the BBC’s highest paid star.

Many had speculated that a tightening of rules on his tweets could see Lineker walk out of the door.

In fact, for now at least, it looks like the opposite will happen - Gary Lineker has tweeted his support of the new rules saying they are “very sensible”.

It appears he views this a victory and will stay on-air.

But this is unlikely to be the end of the matter.

The BBC is walking a delicate tightrope.

As we reported earlier, Gary Lineker posted on X, formerly Twitter, that the new guidance was "all very sensible".

He was then asked in another post by presenter Piers Morgan: "Would you be allowed to say it’s not?".

Lineker responds "most definitely, external", followed by a laughing emoji.

John Hardie has been speaking to BBC News after his report was published today.

He says new guidelines give presenters the freedom to express their views as long as they “engage with the issue” and don't attack a politician or a party.

Hardie says he hopes the guidelines make it easier for the BBC to distinguish between someone who is speaking about a policy and someone who is attacking a politician or party.

Asked if the guidelines give presenters more freedom than previously, he says they "absolutely" do.

Quizzed on what he would tell the broadcaster the next time a social media post sparks controversy (which is how this all started), he says his advice would be: “Take your time, be consistent and be confident when you take a position.”

He adds that he was given “complete independence” to conduct the review, and is “satisfied that the BBC has taken on board my recommendations”.

Elsewhere in the intro to his report, former ITN boss John Hardie notes that "very few" of the people he spoke to "considered the issue was solvable by a simple, satisfactory answer".

He says a small number of his interviewees said the BBC should set no impartiality rules for off-air social media comments of non-news presenters, beyond guidance on "matters of disrepute" such as overtly racist remarks.

He says an equally small number said such presenters who "enjoyed a high-profile on the BBC, well-paid through the licence fee" should not express views on political matters at all.

Hardie adds that he didn't find either answer convincing and the great majority of those he spoke to "considered there was no easy answer" and that there were "compelling and competing principles at play".

Thomas Mackintosh
Live reporter

I'm going through the 54-page document line by line.

In his own words, John Hardie says the scope for his review was "narrow" adding it is focused on a "relatively small portion" of people working for the BBC.

Hardie says he personally carried out 83 interviews with a variety of people.

Trade unions, lawyers, journalists, BBC staff, agents, regulators, BBC executives and even former director generals all spoke to him as he reviewed relevant reports, existing guidelines and contract structures.

He says he invited all staff at the BBC to email him directly their own opinions and observations on a confidential basis as he carried out research.

Hardie says the research is "designed to understand licence-fee payers’ attitudes to the specific subject at hand and the underlying principles in play".