Originally posted by kernelbogey
View Post
-
Sorry, I must have missed MH's entry. The difference between JH's pay and that of the other Today presenters still seems remarkably large, though. -
Agreed - and reflects a gender inequality across the board. Lineker earns more than ten times Clare Balding's figure.Originally posted by ahinton View PostComment
-
It can't be for the number of interviewee interruptions he makes - based on my intuition, none of the Toady presenters would seem to have a monopoly on those.Originally posted by ahinton View Post
Comment
-
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.Comment
-
Yes - it should be made public and all of the arguments about an invasion of privacy are utter tosh. Those in other parts of the public sector, especially on the lower levels, have no real choice in the matter of whether the public know what they are paid. So be it. Nothing to hide. Having said as much, there could be a lot more transparency in such places on the money paid to individual consultants. This list hovers around that sort of area. A fascinating list. Surprisingly short, I thought, so it is probably either the case that hundreds are being paid one pound under that limit or many are not being mentioned on the grounds of a technicality. There are no football pundits other than Alan Shearer. There's no Monty Don or Chris Packham or Ian Hislop or Paul Merton or Alexander Armstrong or Richard Osman or Jeremy Paxman or Andrew Neil or Michael Portillo or Kirsty Young or Nicholas Parsons or David Attenborough or Sue Perkins or Andrew Castle to name just a few. If there is one thing I can't stand about any type of management it is the way in which they conceal half of any story when it suits.
Much of the talent is debatable. Many on the list just happened to be in the right place at the right time. A programme was initially popular. It was felt that it would be good for it to be sustained. Often the popularity was mostly about format. People quite liked the presenters and then just got used to them with a lazy half expectation of them being there. See, for example, Daly and Winkelman. Give a few others a chance and there is no reason why they shouldn't be equally liked or preferred. Some people would be difficult to replace in that they virtually designed their own roles. Those ones stand out. And what also stands out is that the payment does not appear to be very closely linked to the number of hours these people put in. In some cases, the presenters are more akin to the folk who do the after dinner circuits. I think it's very easy to see too where the cuts are being made. No Gambaccini, Walker and most other of advancing years, notwithstanding the inclusion of Humphrys, many of whom are so keen to be employed by the BBC they would probably do their programmes for nothing. That too links in with Attenborough and Parsons. When all of the fuss about gender inequality has been addressed, they might look at the possibility of age discrimination.
One other thing vis a vis the OP. I thought that Channel 4 was partially funded by the television licence. I have said so in the past. I should, therefore, say here that I was wrong on that point. It was something which had been seriously considered following a bail out but apparently it was never introduced. I am not sure which other services need the same transparency.Comment
-
Gender is an interesting one. Is it supply and demand - men prefer men and so do women?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
This, I think, has often been said to the extent that one might think there has been some truth to it but the research will never be done. It doesn't suit the equality agenda. My instinct is to feel that if it were to be undertaken it would reveal generational differences based entirely on what people have grown up with and just expect. I am not overly keen on women sports commentators although I think some of the best sports presenters and sports pundits are women. That angle is almost certainly old fashioned. In other respects, I feel that there are good and bad presenters, irrespective of gender. I could probably name twenty or so current women presenters just off the top of my head who I think are very good broadcasters.Originally posted by french frank View PostComment
-
It's not actually merely a "technicality" if the BBC does not know what the salary is of the people you mention, Lats - and/or is not permitted to publish it. Pointless, for example, is an Endemol production; they make the programme, negotiate the contracts and salaries of the staff involved in this, and offer the programme to the television companies. If (as happened with the baking competition) a competing company offers a higher sum for the programme, Endemol can take it away from the BBC. Richard Osman/Alexander Armstrong's salary is no more a matter for the BBC to publish (or even to know the details of) than are the salaries of the tennis players who appear in the Wimbledon broadcasts.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]Comment
-
Well, yes, I had the likes of Endemol - and is it Hat Trick? - in mind. A lot on my list are people who feature in the very few programmes I like so I wouldn't necessarily think that their payment was inappropriate. Richard Osman was precisely who I had in mind as an example of someone who virtually invented his own role and another I might have mentioned is Frank Skinner. He does the commissioned Room 101 but also turned up on a personal documentary of Muhammed Ali which was rather wonderful to my initial surprise. These are hidden costs, though, aren't they and the structural nature of their exclusion from the list today would be explained at the top of the page by a BBC management that wished to be upfront.Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostComment
-
Indeed - and, likewise, I'm not sure that BBC is being expected to declare sums of £150K+ that it pays to those other than on employed contracts with it (such as self-employed sole traders or companies whom it contracts).Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostComment
-
It would be interesting to know what is supposed to happen next now that the figures are broadly known?Comment
-
Andrew Neil is on the list, actually and some of the others might be paid in excess of £150K by BBC but not as employees thereof.Originally posted by Lat-Literal View PostComment
-
-
Not even Andrew McGregor? Thought he would be in the millions...Originally posted by Bryn View Post
Comment
-
As it's the government that's insisting on the publication, I presume it will now be considered by the Select Committee, Lord Hall will be questioned minutely, a report will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and …Originally posted by gradus View Post
… Good question.
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
Comment