Are they worth it - BBC announces high earners

[jjb1970]

 

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

Phil

Well said and good for you!! I think we'd live in a nicer society if there was a greater tolerance for those with differing views.

[Nearholmer]

Jjb

 

If it was "entertainment" only, I might agree, but it isn't anything like as simple as that.

 

Having a consensually agreed pooling of contributions (which is what a tax is in a democratic society) to pay for the things I mentioned seems like a jolly good idea.

 

To be direct: I don't trust the private sector when it comes to reasonably balanced news coverage, or inculcating values in children. ITV is pretty tame compared with many commercial outlets, and even in their case the children's programming is mostly junk and adverts - the main value they inculcate is consumption.

 

Kevin

Edited July 19, 2017 by Nearholmer

[jjb1970]

Jjb

 

If it was "entertainment" only, I might agree, but it isn't anything like as simple as that.

 

Having a consensually agreed pooling of contributions (which is what a tax is in a democratic society) to pay for the things I mentioned seems like a jolly good idea.

 

To be direct: I don't trust the private sector when it comes to reasonably balanced news coverage, or inculcating values in children.

 

Kevin

The news is a story in itself. In every case where I've read a story I'm familiar with the media story has been complete nonsense, including BBC reporting. I used to find the BBC global news coverage pretty good but these days I find it is woeful. I rarely buy newspapers either, I buy the Economist magazine as at least it is global in scope and not full of parochial non-stories and celebrity tittle tattle. I don't trust the private sector any more than I trust the government when it comes to information management and spin.

[PhilH]

I was surprised to read that there are 96 on air people who fall into the £150000 plus salary. Didn't realise that there were that many 'stars' working for them.....

[Butler Henderson]

Noting a number of comments above feel the need to point out BBC News is the 2017 Royal Television Society News Channel of the Year. Re the salaries a large number of those listed do more than one thing.

[EddieB]

Noting a number of comments above feel the need to point out BBC News is the 2017 Royal Television Society News Channel of the Year. 

Perhaps the Royal Television Society might learn from comments posted here.  Sounds like a mutual appreciation club for media luvvies...

[Mallard60022]

I understand that the BBC is a huge organisation that needs to pay loads of people, many of whom are mostly unknown (e.g. World Service Team). I fully accept good payments for technically talented and well educated members of staff and I'm happy to pay for that.

What I can't come to terms with is the really huge earnings of this sort of elite bunch. Who needs to earn so much when so many are struggling despite working hard and long for the benefit of others? Sorry, can't accept that and not just at the BBC; look at advertising for example. Yes, reward for service to others but why such huge amounts? There must be an optimum amount that is needed to be comfortable in life but so many seem to want so much........not aspiration but basic greed? 

Phil

Edited July 20, 2017 by Mallard60022

[tomparryharry]

Oh, I like Chris Evans, and Jeremy Vine as well. They improve my reaction times.

You'd see how quick I am turning the radio to another channel, when those two gentlemen speak over the airwaves...

Bring back the Light Programme, I Say! Give 'em a spot of National Service!

Harumph! Harumph!

Colonel Fishnett-Tytes (retired).

Edited July 20, 2017 by tomparryharry

[Arthur]

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?

 

These are organisations established and paid to serve the public and they do not have rights.

 

If we are to give public service bodies 'rights' then we really will be under the cosh of the unfettered state.

 

.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Arthur

[Zomboid]

It's harder than you'd think to present radio programs. Just listen to a few far end of the digital spectrum stations and you'll hear people who are doing so professionally, but also incredibly badly.

I don't mean Chris Evans style - I don't really like him, but he's an experienced professional and is good at what he does; I mean stations which sound completely amateur.

By and large, BBC presenters make it sound easy. Except Liza Tarbuck. Cats fighting for 8 hours would be preferable to her show.

[ejstubbs]

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 !

 

Only during the day.  In the evening ie prime viewing time the tennis was usually on BBC2, and occasionally channel-hopped over to BBC1 when a key match overran (like Murray's quarter final IIRC), if the next scheduled BBC2 programme was deemed less expendable than that on BBC1.

 

The BBC ran six red button channels for Wimbledon this year, and multiple live feeds on iPlayer.  They didn't need to fill up two mainstream channels at prime time, and they didn't.  I'm not a great tennis fan either but I doubt that even my careless evening channel-hopping resulted in me having to blink at more than a total of five minutes of unwanted tennis during Wimbledon fortnight.

 

Of course it does help that there's BBC4 as well these days, from 7pm onwards.  And there's iPlayer during the day.  You just need to be a bit more flexible, rather than simply reaching for the same two channels all the time when more choice is being provided.

Edited July 19, 2017 by ejstubbs

[ColinK]

Whenever any of the top three earners appear on TV or radio, I turn it off. So they may attract some listeners/viewers, but they also drive others away. From reading previous posts, looks like I'm not alone.

[Ozexpatriate]

Publishing the salaries of on-air personalities is, I think, a dreadful distraction with many unintended consequences that have nothing to do with 'accountability'. I can easily imagine the squabbling that would take place in contract negotiation related to this data.

 

Additionally, whilst I am very sympathetic to the gender-gap salary problem, there is so much more to it than discriminatory behaviour, intentional, systemic or otherwise. Until women's careers are not interrupted by family responsibilities during their peak years of income increase in a statistically meaningful way there is no easy way to measure the (real) gender-gap issues.

 

There is no question that the license-funded BBC produces some of the highest quality television programming in the English-speaking world. I suspect that much of this content would never happen in a purely commercial context.

 

The broader picture here is the role of 'the fourth estate'. (I don't know if that term has the same currency in the UK as the US, even though it is attributed to Edmund Burke.) There is also the question of 'state-owned media' and while most people would not equate the BBC with say ITAR-TASS, but by definition in some way, it is that.

 

Worldwide, journalism is at an inflection point. In the US, commercial television media outlets have moved into politically polarized corners - greatly influenced by the grotesque reach of the son of my home-town newspaper owner. I don't think the UK is much different in that regard. (Of course, such Yellow Journalism is nothing new from partisan news editors.) Meanwhile dealing with the watershed of the internet, news rooms of respected print media companies are in peril - even in very large newspapers here in the US like the New York Times, Washington Post, and others like the LA Times.

 

Here in the US, the current administration has proposed a budget that eliminates funding to the Corporation For Public Broadcasting, some of which is used to fund programming like "The Newshour" shown nightly on the Public Broadcasting System, and content on National Public Radio. These outlets are exemplary in their journalistic professionalism, though like any 'news' are subject to editorial perspective.

 

The credibility of broadcast information is under greater threat now, more than perhaps ever. This is evident in many ways, including of course the 'fake news' pejorative and the response from the Washington Post adopting a new masthead ("Democracy Dies in Darkness") and the NY Times running advertising ("The truth is more important now than ever"). Ironically, at more or less the same time, Fox News dropped their dissembling "Fair and Balanced" slogan.

 

Making a conscious investment in a news outlet that is not the mouthpiece of a political party or an administration really feels like something worth continuing to invest in.

[gismorail]

How on earth can Chris Evans be worth 2 million compared to Jeremy Vine getting £700,000 when you look at the talent gap ...quite crazy 

[jjb1970]

If you take out a very small number of very high earners most of the salaries don't strike me as being especially high for people in that sector.

As has been pointed out by others, people in that sector can have a short shelf life.

[Dunsignalling]

How on earth can Chris Evans be worth 2 million compared to Jeremy Vine getting £700,000 when you look at the talent gap ...quite crazy 

Can't stand either of them and I consciously or unconsciously avoid all the top 7.

 

JV likes the sound of his own voice far too much, a trait which he's presumably inherited from a long running predecessor in his Radio 2 slot.

 

Never been able to stomach Steve Wright either, he's so transparently an intelligent man playing down to his perceived audience. 

 

I used to listen to Radio 2 for a good portion of the day but hardly ever bother with it any more. In the car, it's usually Radio 4 or recorded music nowadays.

 

John Humphries, in his "day job", seems to have become ever more combative to ever less effect; good on Mastermind, though.

 

I only encounter Gary Lineker in crisp adverts 'cos I don't follow football.

 

Graham Norton is OK if I've had half a skinful but a no-go area sober.

 

Which leaves Huw Edwards, a news anchor so bland that I've long considered his name should be spelled "Who". I don't think I've ever seen anyone else so adept at over-doing understated..............

 

John

Edited July 20, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[jjb1970]

John Humphries seems to equate being aggressive and rude with being a hard and probing interviewer when in fact it more often just comes over as being ill mannered and, well, aggressive. Sometimes I admit that those he is interviewing probably deserve it but often it feels like he is just being needlessly aggressive and it is uncalled for.

[caradoc]

BTW is there a word missing from the topic header ? Are the what worth it; Mega-stars/talents/fatcats/baskets, we can all I'm sure insert our own answer.

 

[Jonboy]

The thing I don't like about the reports I have seen so far is they don't list the hours worked (or broadcast) in relation to the salarys. Figures without being quantified are a waste of time imho.

[Dunsignalling]

The thing I don't like about the reports I have seen so far is they don't list the hours worked (or broadcast) in relation to the salarys. Figures without being quantified are a waste of time imho.

True, and some of those listed work in various programmes across TV and Radio, so the headline figure represents their total pay for more than one "job".

[jjb1970]

I find it quite ironic that given Europe is doing all sorts of work on data protection to protect the privacy of individuals that it is apparently OK to indulge in “naming and shaming” of peoples pay details like this. I’m guessing that not many here would welcome details about their income being splashed across the front pages. What is the point of this? I’m sure most people already knew that some BBC celebs make an awful lot of money (what is perhaps more surprising is the more modest pay of many of them) and it’s not like this will achieve much beyond creating a lot of froth. Will this close the gender pay gap? Probably not. Will it address the talent pay gap? Definitely not. If it is all so easy then my advice to people wanting a slice of the action is to have a go, if they make it then I’ll not object to them being well paid. Chris Evans is being mentioned a lot, I can’t stand him on the radio or most of his TV shows (although oddly enough I find he can be rather engaging when writing and talking about cars, disastrous TG experiment excepted) but two things he isn’t are talentless or stupid. I may not like him but he is clearly a very intelligent man and not without talent, even if those talents are not to my personal taste. I just think this is another example of the politics of gesture and resentment.

[Joseph_Pestell]

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

 

You would only appoint the ones with talent from the many applicants. You can find good DJs at almost any hospital radio.

 

To compare the situation with a "reality TV" show is absurd. The very point of those shows is to highlight how talentless many people are and how deluded they are about that lack of talent. I did not suggest that most of the 60M population of the UK could present radio and TV programmes but that thousands could and would for a reasonable salary.

 

Take David Dimbleby as an example, anyone who chairs difficult public meetings has the same skillset that he does. And they have to do it with much less support. I know because I have got that T-shirt!

[Joseph_Pestell]

How on earth can Chris Evans be worth 2 million compared to Jeremy Vine getting £700,000 when you look at the talent gap ...quite crazy 

At least Jeremy Vine does the show largely on his own. Chris Evans' show (and Sir Terry before him) relies greatly on the banter with other presenters who are not being paid a small fraction of what he is getting.

 

But when JV is off on holiday, do the substitute presenters get the same money? No. Why not when they are clearly doing the same job?

[Torper]

Making a conscious investment in a news outlet that is not the mouthpiece of a political party or an administration really feels like something worth continuing to invest in.

Sadly, the belief that BBC news is unbiased and independent is a myth.  For some time now BBC news has been a parochial institution that serves largely to spout the views of the Establishment and ignore or denigrate items that the Establishment disagrees with or, even worse, considers to be a threat - an prime example is the BBC's coverage of Jeremy Corbyn during the recent election campaign.  It is unfortunate that so many people still believe the BBC to be unbiased, but their number is dwindlling, perhaps largely due to the internet.

 

DT

[cheesysmith]

I find comparing the pay of BBC employees to the PM quite funny. Did they nclude the benefits the PM gets like free transport, free housing in London, free security, guaranteed pension, expenses reenbursment. Let's not forget these BBC employees will work long hours, can be away from home and families for long periods and working unsociable hours.

 

Also, some people like chris evans actually made their monies by making their own program's that the BBC then purchaises.

 

At least these people have a easy way to show if they are worth the monies paid by the simple fact of the viewing/listening figures. How can you tell if the MPs who work for you are worth what they get paid?