Are they worth it - BBC announces high earners

[Free At Last]

Arthur, on 21 Jul 2017 - 14:08, said:Arthur, on 21 Jul 2017 - 14:08, said:

Again, do we need some newscasters earning £500,000, more than twice that of others doing an equally competent job. Don't see the value in it myself.

 

.

It's not even as if they give you any better news...

Edited July 21, 2017 by Free At Last

[45156]

I did once know an ITV newscaster, though he was only a journo, albeit a good one, in those days.  I don't know what he earns now, as he isn't on the channel that we are discussing.  He is also a bit of an expert on railways (so that's a dead giveaway).

ps we've got to page 6 and still  not been locked = progress indeed.

[Nimbus]

As to the original question; I feel unqualified to answer because it so happened that my tendency to switch off, or over, turned out to be somewhat proportional to the relative salaries!

 

The Nim.

[Neil]

Though in my ideal world we would all be paid the same (would anyone argue that they're worth more than the next man or woman) I can't help but think this topic is wandering off into price of everything, value of nothing territory.  The wage bill of the talent is only one component part of the BBC; I think that if there is a question to be asked it's 'is the BBC a good thing or not'? I think it is, particularly when compared to the alternatives.

[Arthur]

 

The whole topic is about BBC salaries so I fail to see how it's wandering off topic.

 

The BBC might be the best broadcaster in the world. That does not mean it should be able run free with public money.

 

I'm not concerned about price, I am concerned about value.

 

.

[Dunsignalling]

I don't think that revealing the salaries funded by taxpayers is ever irrelevant. We know what the PM earns, ministers, MP's. Just nice to see where our money goes, helps act as a brake on unjustified costs.

 

Maybe the BBC should cut some of these salaries and then we'd see just which private broadcasters snapped them up.

 

I return to BBC newscasters. The differences in salaries is staggering. As far as I'm concerned they all do the job well enough, I actually prefer some of the lower paid ones.

 

Again, do we need some newscasters earning £500,000, more than twice that of others doing an equally competent job. Don't see the value in it myself.

 

.

I think we can take it as read that no newsreader is worth £500,000 pa. if only because there's nobody doing anything, anywhere on the planet who's worth £500,000 pa.

 

John

Edited July 21, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[jjb1970]

I actually read the Times yesterday and saw this too. Had a giggle. I buy that paper every so often as it actually seems to have a go at most sides of politics and isn't so biased towards one particular bunch (although individuals th at write for it are, of course). Yes I know who 'owns it' but that doesn't make me want to burn it. I have read it following the Referendum and the latest election and yesterday because I happened to be in my corner shop and thought I'd see what they had to say about this BBC thing. This helps me understand the points of view of others, perhaps more enlightened than myself, that also have opposing beliefs to myself. I find it balances out my increasing old git's attitudes to stuff. Sadly the Beano seems to be no longer available.

Phil

For all I have an intensive dislike of Rupert Murdoch and most of his press interests I do have a lot of respect for the Times if for no other reason than the fact they had the balls to stand by David Walsh and go after Lance Armstrong when almost the rest of the press (and I think all of the dedicated cycling press) were writing fawning garbage and acting more like Armstrong fan boys than journalists. Not many papers would've paid out a big libel settlement and still stood by Walsh and still let him write the truth on Armstrong and drugs in cycling. Walsh and the Times were ultimately vindicated, but a lot of the press that critics of the Times like to put on a higher pedestal joined the anti-Walsh bandwagon to try and get in Armstrong's good books. Whatever the other faults of the Times, it'll always have some respect from me for that reason alone.

[Pacific231G]

That is a completely wrong way to look at  the "market". This is precisely the opposite of an open market.

 

Out there, there are literally hundreds (and probably thousands) of people who could present a radio show as competently as Chris Evans and Jeremy Vine and would like the job. If it was advertised, like normal jobs, at, say £50,000 per annum, are you really telling me that there would be no applicants?

 

(And as for Claudia Winkelmann earning that much............)

No there aren't. Really good presenters are actually very hard to find, that's why the same ones turn up on so many shows. They make it seem easy but so do most people who are really expert at their craft. The reason why they get paid so well is because the talent pool is fairly small. If you're a producer you have a budget and the more of it you have to spend on performers the less you have for all the other things you need for a programme so you're not looking to spend any more on performers than you have to.   

 

If you doubt this listen to the difference between a national radio channel  and a local radio station.

[Ozexpatriate]

For all I have an intensive dislike of Rupert Murdoch and most of his press interests I do have a lot of respect for the Times ...

That's a matter of understanding the News Corp. philosophy across the portfolio. The Times was ever a conservative organ - as was/is The Wall Street Journal.  No heavy-handed editorial control is necessary to direct these more prestigious properties into a conservative political perspective.

 

News Corp. always permitted the flagship print properties in their portfolio to retain some journalistic integrity, since to do so reflects well on the whole brand, helping legitimize the scurrilous rags (like The New York Post) and multi-media outlets where the more blatant proselytizing takes place.

 

Sir Keith (Rupert's father) was a protege of Lord Northcliffe (proprietor of The Times). He earned himself the nickname "Lord Southcliffe" by applying what he learned at The Times at the Melbourne Herald, learning the art of king-making and acquiring newspapers across Australia in the 1930s. Young (Keith) Rupert was groomed to this life.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Ozexpatriate

[Pacific231G]

There are countries (Australia is the one that I'm familiar with, but I'm sure there are others) which manage to maintain a quality public broadcaster without the anachronism that is the UK TV license system. Admittedly the ABC has its problems and is perhaps not fully up to the BBC's standard in many areas but it's not bad and would be better if successive governments of both colours had not starved it of funds.

Thanks but I'd rather have television and radio that is up to the BBC's standards rather than "not bad" and fortunately living in Britain that is exactly what I do get. I subscribe to a cable TV service which gives me a large choice of channels but most of the television I end up watching seems to be on BBC-4, BBC-2, BBC-News (apart from news it offers, Click, Meet the Author,Hard Talk etc.) and sometimes on Ch-4.

 

For example, one of my interests is history but if I watch programmes on say the History Channel it's obvious that almost no money has been spent on research and it's extremely rare to get anything more than a regurgitation of "common knowledge" and the same archive footage that I've seen a hundred times before and usually barely related to the narrative. What I often get from the BBC, particularly from programmes made in-house, are new interpretations and insights and the sense that someone has actually thought  about what their programe is saying. 

 

If PSB in Britain was funded from general taxation rather than the licence fee then being starved of funds by successive government is exactly what would happen to the BBC. The licence fee is one of those things that should never work in theory but has worked in practice. I suspect that, a bit like democracy, it's  the worst way to fund broadcasting apart from all the others.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Mallard60022]

Thanks but I'd rather have television and radio that is up to the BBC's standards rather than "not bad" and fortunately living in Britain that is exactly what I do get. I subscribe to a cable TV service which gives me a large choice of channels but most of the television I end up watching seems to be on BBC-4, BBC-2, BBC-News (apart from new, Click, Meet the Author,Hard Talk etc.) and sometimes on Ch-4.

 

For example, one of my interests is history but if I watch programmes on say the History Channel it's obvious that almost no money has been spent on research and it's extremely rare to get anything more than a regurgitation of "common knowledge" and the same archive footage that I've seen a hundred times before and usually barely related to the narrative. What I often get from the BBC, particularly from programmes made in-house, are new interpretations and insights and the sense that someone has actually thought  about what their programe is saying. 

 

If PSB in Britain was funded from general taxation rather than the licence fee then being starved of funds by successive government is exactly what would happen to the BBC. The licence fee is one of those things that should never work in theory but has worked in practice. I suspect that, a bit like democracy, it's.................  

,,,,,,,,,oh please finish as I enjoyed reading that.

Thanks

Phil

[Mallard60022]

Ok, so I have had a few days to mull this over. The answer to the original question is an emphatic NO, if it is more than about £200,000.

However much I or we may dislike Politicians, certain of them have their finger on the Button and if they are only paid what we think they are paid we obviously do not have the very best finger.

Don't get me started on the comparisons............ if we need the best Cleaners, Carers, Nurses, Therapists, Pharmacists, Junior Doctors, Paramedics, Firefighters, Social Workers, front line Police Officers, Farm Workers and all those other people that do real jobs, because if you do I shall be banned immediately and what I say will get this thread closed within seconds.

Have a good weekend,

I'm off to take my medication..........................

Phil

[57xx]

,,,,,,,,,oh please finish as I enjoyed reading that.

Thanks

Phil

It was his Eastenders finish. Dum dum dum diddly dum!

[jjb1970]

The BBC has produced some genuinely brilliant history documentaries over the years and along with natural history it is one of the areas where the output of the BBC was not only world class but quite probably world leading. However, I've found that both their history and natural history output has declined noticeably. They also used to make some outstanding science programs, another area where current output that I've tried feels very light compared to the standard of older programs. I'm not quite sure why that is, whether it is budgetary, democratising TV by making programs more accessible or just a lower standard of research and production but I do think there has been a marked decline.

[Bernard Lamb]

I find it rather odd that not one of the presenters on the London early evening news is on the list, whereas both regular presenters on the following programme are. The London people speak very good English that can be readily understood by Londoners, whereas the other pair have such dreadful accents that become a pain to listen to for any length of time. They even have a young lady in London who referred to Waterloo Railway Station last night. The same comments apply to Scotland where the choice of presenter always seems to me to be excellent.

To put things in perspective. The Directors of the Tate and National Gallery are paid £167 and £168 thousand. At a talk by one of them the other week the chap who introduced the Director made the point that he does not do it for the money. Meaning that he could earn far more working for a different employer. The Director made the comment that he did the job as he just liked hanging pictures. I wonder how many on the BBC list would continue to work if they just liked being on telly.

Bernard

[EddieB]

The BBC has produced some genuinely brilliant history documentaries over the years and along with natural history it is one of the areas where the output of the BBC was not only world class but quite probably world leading. However, I've found that both their history and natural history output has declined noticeably. They also used to make some outstanding science programs, another area where current output that I've tried feels very light compared to the standard of older programs. I'm not quite sure why that is, whether it is budgetary, democratising TV by making programs more accessible or just a lower standard of research and production but I do think there has been a marked decline.

Totally agree.  To some extent, I think the BBC is resting on its laurels but I think more to do with "editorial policy" which I do think is slanted towards pushing an agenda.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in its news bulletins, where the ratio of reporting facts to "expert" comments is growing increasingly toward the latter.

[jjb1970]

I think where you really see editorial policy at work is in the docu-drama genre. The BBC made a film about the days leading into WW1 a while ago called 37 Days. As a piece of drame it was superb, a stellar cast played their parts with aplomb. As an educational history film it was utter nonsense and downright misleading. Now some at the BBC might defend it on the basis of it only being a drama program.If it was presented as fictional drama then that'd be fair enough but it was presented as docu-drama and a reconstruction of events. This is something that has become increasingly prevalent on the BBC, mixing of truth and editorial slant. That might be defended by pointing out that other channels are no beter. A fair argument undermined by the fact that you don't have to fund the alternatives (I refuse to subscribe to Sky) and that if the whole raison d'etre of the BBC is to provide independent and impartial public service broadcasting then that is what it should provide. I wouldn't say the BBC was worse than alternative broadcasters but I wouldn't consider it any better either. Personally I find TV in general to be very disappointing.

[Butler Henderson]

BBC4 is supposed to be the home of factual stuff but the extent of new programmes has been cut back severely, although their are still some good new programmes at times. Their was one on Raleigh recently which was of great interest being a cyclist and growing up in Nottingham. There is also a gem of a shot close to start of the programme of a tram turning right at a T junction - it took me a few moments to realise the tram was alongside the side of the Midland station before that station building was built which easily dates the shot; the tram services starting in October 1901 and the station building being opened in 1904. 

 

Public Sector salaries always seem to be controversial topic but at the end of the day employees like everyone else are looking for the best salary deal so its a case of paying the market rate or offering a package that is equivalent otherwise staff will decamp to the private sector. Having said that at least the BBC are not paying anyone £15m unlike ITV.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Butler Henderson

[Arthur]

 

On a lighter note, Radio 4's Dead Ringers 'impressions' based show this morning had an ongoing spoof of bitching between those BBC presenters well paid, and colleagues not featuring quite so highly. The latter being somewhat curmudgeonly and unhelpful to their wealthier presenters and to callers in.

 

Skits along the lines of; chap calls Money Box for investment advice on his windfall, 'Oh, £70,000, bully for you, don't know why you're asking me, speak to Gary Lineker, he seems to have plenty to invest.

 

.

[Horsetan]

On a lighter note, Radio 4's Dead Ringers 'impressions' based show this morning had an ongoing spoof of bitching between those BBC presenters well paid, and colleagues not featuring quite so highly. The latter being somewhat curmudgeonly and unhelpful to their wealthier presenters and to callers in.

 

Skits along the lines of; chap calls Money Box for investment advice on his windfall, 'Oh, £70,000, bully for you, don't know why you're asking me, speak to Gary Lineker, he seems to have plenty to invest.

 

The one involving Diane "Russ" Abbott being unable to reconcile the idea that B.Liar might be right about JC (" 'e's not the Messiah) coming to power was highly amusing,

Edited July 22, 2017 by Horsetan

[Arthur]

 

They had a cracker a couple of weeks back;

 

"JC is explaining to Diane Abbot that Labour have a pro Brexit policy for their traditional voters in the north and an anti Brexit policy for their southern metropolitan luvvies.

 

But it's not possible to hold two diametrically opposite views at the same time says Abbot.

 

Yes it is, we've consulted an expert, says JC.

 

Who?

 

Schrodinger, says JC, we can have a Brexit policy that is simultaneously both dead and alive."

 

 

Brilliant.

.

[PatB]

Totally agree.  To some extent, I think the BBC is resting on its laurels but I think more to do with "editorial policy" which I do think is slanted towards pushing an agenda.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in its news bulletins, where the ratio of reporting facts to "expert" comments is growing increasingly toward the latter.

I suspect that this may be a symptom of budgetary issues. The ABC here has a similar bias towards "expert" comment too, possibly because it's cheaper to get a talking head into a studio to offer what is, in effect, their opinion, than it is to pay real journalists to do real investigative journalism. Not only cheaper, but, now I think about it, quicker too, which tends to be important with the 24 hour news cycle we're so often told about.

[EddieB]

Yes it is, we've consulted an expert, says JC.

Who?

Schrodinger, says JC, we can have a Brexit policy that is simultaneously both dead and alive."

Brilliant.

.

So Corbyn's "success" at the last election was a "dead cat bounce"?

[EddieB]

I suspect that this may be a symptom of budgetary issues. The ABC here has a similar bias towards "expert" comment too, possibly because it's cheaper to get a talking head into a studio to offer what is, in effect, their opinion, than it is to pay real journalists to do real investigative journalism. Not only cheaper, but, now I think about it, quicker too, which tends to be important with the 24 hour news cycle we're so often told about.

No, I don't think it is a budgetary issue, as the BBC seem to have plenty to spend elsewhere. It seems to me like BBC staffers being called upon to advance the approved views of the Corporation. These comments then serve to reduce the number of topics reported within a news bulletin.

[Torper]

Personally I find TV in general to be very disappointing.

 

Quite.  Last night (Saturday) there was (IMO) nothing at all worth watching on any of the major channels (but Saturday always is pretty awful).  Tonight the same will apply.  And tomorrow (though I appreciate that Ripper Street is enjoyed by many, though not by me).  I refuse to watch BBC news because of its bias and increasing trivial parochialism.  As a result, much of my watching now is of old programmes on ITV3, Drama and Yesterday, or on DVDs (currently going through Brideshead Revisited again and it's marvellous).  And of course lack of decent TV gives me more modelling time in the evening.

 

DT