Are they worth it - BBC announces high earners

[Nearholmer]

Let me say first that I wouldn't pay the man at the top of the list a bean, because I don't like his programmes, but then I'll get sensible .......

 

This is all part of the insidious "chip, chip, chip" of those who have an interest not in making the BBC more accountable, but in diminishing and dismantling it, in order that it doesn't get in the way of their own ability to accumulate sums of money that make Mr Evans' pay packet look very thin indeed.

 

Ask yourself why the same openness isn't being required of other broadcast companies? Ask yourself whether the "well, they're in the private sector" argument actually makes a grain of sense.

 

Let's have openness and accountability..... but let's have it applied universally, with no special pleading.

 

Kevin

Edited July 19, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Arthur]

 

Ask yourself whether the "well, they're in the private sector" argument actually makes a grain of sense.

 

Yes it does. I pay the BBC whether I like it or not, I don't subscribe to Sky, nor any other provider.

 

Commercial channels need to draw in audiences to maintain advertiser revenue, I can live with that.

 

I have a lot of support for the BBC, it's probably the best broadcaster anywhere and it's generally my channel of choice. That does not mean it is some perfect form and should run itself as some high handed fiefdom.

 

The BBC is a bit like the NHS. It's acolytes will truck no criticism and calls for reform are seen as attempts to dismantle it.

 

I want both to be accountable, open to modernisation and reform, delivering to those that pay for it the best service with the money they are given.

 

.

[DDolfelin]

No.

But I would be minded to defend their right to receive it.

[Arthur]

 

It is most certainly not a 'right'.

 

.

[Stanier16]

Given the declining and poor standard of programming offered by the BBC, I don't think they are worth a tenth of what they given. An organisation that ostensibly relies on money from the British people, I would love to see the license fee abolished. As it is I rarely view the BBC, especially because of lack of balance, their reliance on "celebrity" presenters and the poor standard of research with regard to documentaries. Concentrating on the presenter, rather than the subject really gets my goat! Chris Evans, we'll need one say more; an over priced, talentless public school boy.

[Dunsignalling]

Just to put it into perspective, Mr Evens gets around 9.4 million listeners each week. That's about 25p per listener per year to pay his wages. I suspect he could ask for a lot more on a commercial station.

 

Are they worth £100,000's for the job they do? Probably not but the same could be said for premiership footballers and many others in the entertainment industries. Worth and value to society rarely go with a decent pay packet.

 

Steven B.

Inversely proportional in far too many cases.

 

Q> What's the difference between Terry Wogan and Chris Evans?

 

A> Terry Wogan only got on my wick some of the time.

 

The private sector would be welcome to him. It doesn't matter a damn how many people listen to Radio 2 at that time in the morning. In any case, that 9.4 million is presumably about 2 million once you take into account that most of his listeners will be the same people each day. 

 

John

Edited July 19, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

It is most certainly not a 'right'.

 

.

If someone offers me money to do something, and I don't object to any conditions imposed, it's my right to take it, what's the difference? 

[Horsetan]

No.

But I would be minded to defend their right to receive it.

 

....because that could easily have been you or me earning that kind of money.

 

"The working class

Can kiss my ar*e

I've got the foreman's job at last...."

[jjb1970]

I must admit I object to the license fee. I have nothing against the BBC but can’t see why people who would happily go without the service are forced to pay for it. This isn’t like education or healthcare. All children should have a right to be educated, and all persons should have access to healthcare and it is entirely right that society as a whole should meet the costs of providing universal healthcare and education (though as it happens I don’t see why that needs a NHS). Television is entertainment, the BBC is hardly a purveyor of highbrow culture and educational programming, from what I can see it is more about TV talent shows, cookery shows, soaps and other programs the loss of which would hardly be a great loss to humankind. The BBC news bulletins have really gone downhill to the point I very rarely bother even watching the BBC news anymore. I think there is a parallel with the NHS in that people in the UK have been told so many times that the BBC is the envy of the world and the finest broadcaster in existence that many believe it, yet it’s not what I find when I travel. Everybody points to America as a warning, and for sure there is a whole lot of garbage on US TV but I really wouldn’t consider it to be any worse than what we’re fed over here. And if you look for it there is some genuinely very high quality TV in the US.

On the other hand, if the BBC wants to pay their celebrities high salaries then it’s their prerogative to pay what they consider to be a fair, market amount.

[Dunsignalling]

Yes it does. I pay the BBC whether I like it or not, I don't subscribe to Sky, nor any other provider.

 

Commercial channels need to draw in audiences to maintain advertiser revenue, I can live with that.

 

I have a lot of support for the BBC, it's probably the best broadcaster anywhere and it's generally my channel of choice. That does not mean it is some perfect form and should run itself as some high handed fiefdom.

 

The BBC is a bit like the NHS. It's acolytes will truck no criticism and calls for reform are seen as attempts to dismantle it.

 

I want both to be accountable, open to modernisation and reform, delivering to those that pay for it the best service with the money they are given.

 

.

Much as I detest Chris Evans, and I could easily live without all on the list down to and including No.7, the BBC is between a rock and a hard place on this subject.

 

If they don't attempt to compete with the commercial sector on ratings, they are accused of being elitist, out of touch with society or both. 

 

If they do, they have to compete for the "talent" to drive those ratings against that same commercial sector. That can mean paying the same sort of remuneration, though fortunately, quite a lot of artists/presenters prefer to work for the BBC and are willing to do so for somewhat less than they could get elsewhere.

 

Make no mistake, there is just one real reason for these revelations being demanded of the BBC; the long-held ambition of the Conservative Party to cripple and eventually abolish it.

 

John

Edited July 19, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Nearholmer]

Arthur

 

I agree with your points about the BBC and NHS, and by extension other public services, but they don't seem to me to give a reason as to why we shouldn't have transparency from the private sector also.

 

In this instance, if nothing else it would tell us whether or not we are paying "over the odds" for the talent we hire with our license fees.

 

I strongly suspect that we aren't, that in fact we are paying "market rate" in a rather crazy market, but we just don't know, do we?

 

Stoking-up a "well it's a market that the public service shouldn't be in anyway" argument is exactly what those who stand to make a packet by diminishing public services are looking to do. Like anyone, they seek unfettered freedom of action. It's what they do with it when they get it that is the real worry, because they are accountable to nobody, save in some, not all, cases, shareholders.

 

Ask first "who profits".

 

Kevin

 

PS: the BBC could do itself and us all a favour by not using its news organisation to advertise its own programmes, as it has shamelessly done with Dr Who in the past week. Talk about asking for trouble!

Edited July 19, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Jjb

 

I'd be happy to pay the license fee three times over just for the BBC children's programmes.

 

Have you see the utter tosh pumped-out by the other channels for consumption by our kids?

 

That, plus reasonably factual and balanced news and current affairs is about a great deal more than "entertainment". It's as vital to the health of our minds as the NHS is to the health of our bodies (debate separately whether the NHS is a health service, or an illness service!).

 

Kevin

[Vistisen]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40653383

 

Oh dear, is that individual who is named as the highest paid BBC presenter actually worth even 1% of what he gets - being paid such massive sums for uttering no stop drivel with musical interludes seems a ludicrous wast of licence payers money.

 

I think that is should be a requirement that you have to enter your own salary to be published on the BBC's website, before you are allowed in to see it. This is madness, at the very these people should have given their permission before being hung out to the baying wolves. It is none of my business what they earn. If their employers think they earn too much, or the people concerned think they earn too little that is them to sort out between themselves. And before anyone starts banging on about it being the license payers money therefore they have a right to know, ask yourself whether you are as interested in where the BBC buys its coffee and toilet paper, they are also bought "for my hard earned cash"!

[Steven B]

Chris Evans, we'll need one say more; an over priced, talentless public school boy.

 

Talentless maybe, but not a public school boy. Chris Evans went to a CoE Grammar School, followed by a local comprehensive school.

 

Steven B.

[sjp23480]

Setting aside my personal preferences, which are pretty much irrelevant regards what their people get paid or which programmes I do/don't enjoy. Ultimately, the license fee equates to a cup of coffee a week from certain well known purveyors of such goods. Taken in the round you will have your own view as to whether this represents good value for money. Unless you shop in John Lewis/Waitrose of course! :-)

 

I probably consume 10-15 hours worth of BBC content each week (Tv, radio and websites), That equates to 0.5 pence per minute. Which I personally consider good value for money regardless of what individuals cost the corporation.

 

Also, keep in mind that Channel 4 is also a PSB, owned by the government (ultimately) but not funded by the license fee - except for when it needed to complete its digital switch over. So, if the license fee was removed would the BBC end up looking/feeling like C4? With ~5% of the viewing public that feels relatively unappealing. I suspect C4 will be privatised long before the BBC goes on the block.

 

Speaking of the ability to compete, I think of the state of affairs as it relates to sports coverage. Very little is left on "free" to view channels and the outrageous contract values being signed lead to disproportionately paid "professionals" across the upper echelons of many/most sports that enjoy such coverage. Leaving the BBC unable to compete for coverage, rIghtly or wrongly, without risking the wrath of licence payers for paying over the odds for something. This has even extended to programmes like Bake Off, which is ridiculous.

 

PSB broadcasting in most other countries is marginalised and typically very limited in the scope of its programming. Notable exceptions are probably Cuba and North Korea! The continuing migration of the younger generation away from mainstream media will ultimately call the license funding model into question, but the alternatives don't seem very appealing, IMHO.

 

The government could do away with the license fee, and just pay for the BBC out of income tax, but suspect that would meet with howls of derision from the transparency/accountability mob.

 

Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

 

Steve

Edited July 19, 2017 by sjp23480

['CHARD]

Of course they're not 'worth it' except in the open market in which they operate.  They are paid what the market dictates, and because we live in a competitive, capitalist free market, fair play to them. 

 

In some cases, their light shines briefly, so they have to take what they can while they are able.  Equally, the slightest misdemeanour can and has, seen them sacked or suspended - look at Paul Gambaccini and Tony Blackburn for innocent victims of false claims.  So it can be a bit perilous up there.

 

Do I begrudge it them - not really, but those who I can't personally stand, of course I'll play my face a bit and slag them off - isn't that just human nature!

Edited July 19, 2017 by 'CHARD

[caradoc]

I am a licence fee payer, I don't personally like Chris Evans and never listen to or watch his programmes, yet I am not the slightest bit concerned by how much he (and his fellow high earners take home); My own contribution to his pay is a tiny fraction of the annual fee, and is far outweighed by the benefit I get from the BBC. My only complaint is that I should have had a licence fee rebate for the last two weeks when both BBC1 and BBC2 were wall-to-wall tennis, which I can't stand !

[Joseph_Pestell]

Of course they're not 'worth it' except in the open market in which they operate.  They are paid what the market dictates, and because we live in a competitive, capitalist free market, fair play to them. 

 

In some cases, their light shines briefly, so they have to take what they can while they are able.  Equally, the slightest misdemeanour can and has, seen them sacked or suspended - look at Paul Gambaccini and Tony Blackburn for innocent victims of false claims.  So it can be a bit perilous up there.

 

Do I begrudge it them - not really, but those who I can't personally stand, of course I'll play my face a bit and slag them off - isn't that just human nature!

 

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............)

Edited July 19, 2017 by Joseph_Pestell

[Mallard60022]

My beliefs in fairness for society do not allow me to consider salaries like these to be acceptable, just as with any other people that earn huge amounts for what seems like not that an important contribution to society.  

You may not agree with my beliefs but I stand by them.

Phil

[john new]

My beliefs in fairness for society do not allow me to consider salaries like these to be acceptable, just as with any other people that earn huge amounts for what seems like not that an important contribution to society.  

You may not agree with my beliefs but I stand by them.

Phil

Concur fully. It seems to be that the £/$/€ value of many salaries are inversely proportional to the societal value of the job being paid for.

 

What amazes me with show biz salaries is that with the levels of really good talent coming out of drama schools each year the whole TV/radio industry still sticks by the star system. Put them on air, if they are good they will soon be known names. They don't need to pay a DJ those immoral wages.

[stovepipe]

 Put them on air, if they are good they will soon be known names. They don't need to pay a DJ those immoral wages.

 

And when they are known names, and pull in an audience, what then?

 

It's how Mr Evans got started.

[Mark Saunders]

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............)

How many would last the first month and how many would have any talent?

 

Just look at the rejected ones on Britain Needs Talelent and that does not even include the ones who did not get past the auditions!

 

Mark Saunders

[john new]

And when they are known names, and pull in an audience, what then?

 

It's how Mr Evans got started.

The BBC was a large corporation and should have had a sensible graded salary scale in place not individually negotiated contracts. With these differences on gender pay levels etc., that is clearly not the case now (even if it ever was).

 

Regarding "talent" if they think they are worth more they can resign and go somewhere else; take it or leave it. As arguing against the policy that has led to why the BBC has been splintered and ruined in recent years becomes political, therefore contrary to forum rules,  I won't elaborate except to say I think the current policy of mostly outsourced production is wrong.

Edited July 19, 2017 by john new

[tamperman36]

How can any of these so called celebs justify salaries that are anywhere near what the lowest paid on the list get when we have nurses, care workers, fire fighters, police officers, 100s of thousands of people that go out every day and spend there working hours grafting, doing hard physical work for far, far less.

[jjb1970]

Jjb

 

I'd be happy to pay the license fee three times over just for the BBC children's programmes.

 

Have you see the utter tosh pumped-out by the other channels for consumption by our kids?

 

That, plus reasonably factual and balanced news and current affairs is about a great deal more than "entertainment". It's as vital to the health of our minds as the NHS is to the health of our bodies (debate separately whether the NHS is a health service, or an illness service!).

 

Kevin

I'm not really a fan of TV, although I do love a few shows. At the moment my favourite is "Parks and Recreation" which is quite wonderful. I'd quite happily just have my TV screen as a monitor for watching movies but my wife and kiddies watch more TV. While I wouldn't consider the stuff they watch as being especially inspiring I also have to say it seems no worse than what the BBC pumps out these days.

I have a philosophical objection to the concept of government using coercion to extract a mandatory tax backed by legal sanctions if you want to watch broadcast TV. If there was a mandatory charge for watching the BBC then I'd say fair enough as if you're going to watch it then you should pay for it (or accept advertising), however it is all broadcast TV so even if you never watch the BBC you have to pay for it if you want to watch Channel 4 or other channels. That offends my libertarian sensibilities, I accept that some sort of government is necessary and I accept that taxes to fund health, education, defence, law and order and other things are necessary. However I find the concept of government mandating a TV tax to fund entertainment whether or not you want it to be profoundly objectionable and an abuse of the power that we have vested in government, but that's just me.