BBC stars wages made public

[Harrystottle]

What did surprise me was how much some of the radio presenters got. Half a million for Steve Wright? I thought he was dead!

 

Some real massive disparities though. Emily Maitlis doesn't even get 150k, Huw wotsit gets 500K???

[tinfoilhat]

What did surprise me was how much some of the radio presenters got. Half a million for Steve Wright? I thought he was dead!

 

Some real massive disparities though. Emily Maitlis doesn't even get 150k, Huw wotsit gets 500K???

 

And Fiona Bruce also gets loads less than huw wotsit AND she does antiques roadshow. I'd be sacking her agent if I was her.

[Mister M]

What did surprise me was how much some of the radio presenters got. Half a million for Steve Wright? I thought he was dead!

 

Some real massive disparities though. Emily Maitlis doesn't even get 150k, Huw wotsit gets 500K???

 

It is odd. The role of a Newsnight presenter involves interviewing people, holding people to account, and perhaps taking part in investigative journalism. No disrespect to Huw Edwards, but he reads from an autocue.

[ECCOnoob]

It is odd. The role of a Newsnight presenter involves interviewing people, holding people to account, and perhaps taking part in investigative journalism. No disrespect to Huw Edwards, but he reads from an autocue.

 

I very much doubt that any news anchor just sits there reading from an autocute.

 

The majority are journalists in their own right and do vast amounts of work (some including having direct collation and writing of the lead stores) to get it ready for air. In fact there are various videos online which show just how hard juggling all that information and changing scripts, whilst talking on camera, whilst having producers shouting in your ear and keeping an eye on what's happening on your monitors and also keeping an eye on a very exact broadcast time clock is a lot lot harder than most of us would ever think it.

 

If we apply a simple approach to Newsnight one could argue that that so called "holding people to account" is nothing more than reading out a list of questions. Newsnight also has all day to prepare a small selection of stories based upon content that the other BBC news teams have already prepared for broadcast multiple times over the day.

 

IMO the presenters are doing the same job. They are both journalists and anchors of a news show. The only difference is the broadcast style. One is faster paced general broadcast for the masses, the other is in depth, selective items for a more detailed analsyis for a more reduced group of viewers.

 

With the exception of a handful of bimbos (male and female) who present things like Channel 5 news or those ITV 2/3/4 quick fire things, the majority of newscasters are proper journalists undertaking a range of work, including senior level editorial duties behind the scenes.

Edited July 22, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[spilldig]

60% think it's not value for money, not that it's not fit for purpose.

 

Something both polls agree on:-

 

1... 71% said they felt the BBC was important to them and were satisfied with the services it provides

2... 73% believed the UK was better off with the BBC.

 

The vast majority of the public like the BBC and think it's important, the only really contentious issue is how it's funded.

 

Not according to post 106 where 60% think as I do that it's not value for money.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2017 at 19:34 ----------

 

There's one obvious clue that the BBC is getting the balance correct.

 

Quite simply it annoys the left and the right in equal measure. Both believe the BBC is biased

 

It simply doesn't matter. Politics don't come into it for me. It's just a tax on watching television that is not needed.

[ECCOnoob]

Not according to post 106 where 60% think as I do that it's not value for money.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2017 at 19:34 ----------

 

 

It simply doesn't matter. Politics don't come into it for me. It's just a tax on watching television that is not needed.

 

Says who. Broadcasting of any kind costs money. Its not just about what you see on the screen.

 

There is a whole infrastructure that goes with it. There a huge amounts of public services and MANDATORY provisions that broadcasters have to adhere to which would otherwise be neglected becuase a company would simply not be prepared to take it on as it makes no profit.

 

The fact that in the circumstances it happens to fund the BBC to keep it advert free is irrelevant. We are not paying for a BBC licence. We are paying for a licence to watch live television broadcasts.

 

If the BBC was abandoned or advert free it doesn't mean that the TV licence would go too.

 

You will see that many countries around the world have TV licences despite their television services being filled with adverts and the sort of commercial influential bias that the BBC nicely avoids.

 

If you dont want to watch live broadcast TV then fine. Dont have it and you can avoid paying the tax.

 

Nobody is stoping you owning a TV monitor and using the internet, DVDs, streaming services or USB sticks. You could even read a book or even listen to the radio which in fact, could be a brucie bonus since our tv licence fee monies also pays for vast amounts of radio stations too.

 

Some people need to be careful what they wish for. Yay, lets abolish the TV tax they chant. Perhaps they would be suddenly crying if we followed say Malta, where they switched off ALL their free to air tv or like perhaps like The Netherlands where it comes out of general taxation.

 

Nurses or Television out of taxes. Can see that going down well eh?

[Magilla]

Not according to post 106 where 60% think as I do that it's not value for money.

 

Which in no way could be said to equate to "unfit for purpose".

 

It simply doesn't matter. Politics don't come into it for me. It's just a tax on watching television that is not needed.

 

According to you, but not the vast majority.

[I1L2T3]

Not according to post 106 where 60% think as I do that it's not value for money.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2017 at 19:34 ----------

 

 

It simply doesn't matter. Politics don't come into it for me. It's just a tax on watching television that is not needed.

 

You understand that it isn't free in any circumstances right?

[silentP]

Then you are in a massive minority:-

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/claire-enders/case-for-bbc-research-underpinnings

 

97% of UK adults use BBC services each week, spending an average of 18.5 hours on them.

 

80% of UK adults would miss the BBC if it no longer existed, more than any other broadcaster.

 

The reality is that the vast majority of the UK likes the BBC and thinks it's good value for money.

 

Can you have a massive minority?

[I1L2T3]

Not according to post 106 where 60% think as I do that it's not value for money.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2017 at 19:34 ----------

 

 

It simply doesn't matter. Politics don't come into it for me. It's just a tax on watching television that is not needed.

 

But like it or not it is a very political subject, and your views align closely with the right wing arguments.

 

Part of the right wing injective is to build a perception that the BBC isn't needed, is biased, a waste of money etc... and again like it or not they are trying to build that perception against the weight of public opinion.