BBC to Reveal Stars Earnings
Discussion
zygalski said:
Randy Winkman said:
TEKNOPUG said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
zygalski said:
Can't say I'm shocked about the thinly-veiled politics of envy being played out by so many devout right wing PH capitalists.
Hypocrisy...? Surely not!
+1Hypocrisy...? Surely not!
People love capitalism until someone they deem less worthy than them earns more than they do.
Supply & demand. If MOTD is failing, the Beeb would be under pressure to cut costs.
Hard to see why Evans earns what he does JUST for hosting a radio show...
Is that really VFM?
Interesting point on BBC news just now - Those who have left and returned 'tend' (Their words) to be paid more than those who've remained loyal.
You can argue that back and forth, but it seems to reflect the working world generally, in my experience...
M.
Is that really VFM?
Interesting point on BBC news just now - Those who have left and returned 'tend' (Their words) to be paid more than those who've remained loyal.
You can argue that back and forth, but it seems to reflect the working world generally, in my experience...
M.
Edited by marcosgt on Wednesday 19th July 17:18
Not read the whole thread, so apologies if already covered, but I have no idea why the BBC is still being publicly funded by the TV licence - their content is little different than what we see from other broadcasters, the only difference is we don't have to put up with adverts on the BBC. The BBC even buy programmes from private production companies that product for private TV companies.
Why not just replace the TV licence with a subscription to watch and use BBC and related services, just like Sky? They are now forcing people to register for iPlayer. Or another option is for the the BBC to charge for "premium content", with all the ethically diverse that about 5 people watch and maybe the news still FoC.
If their content is really that good then they have nothing to worry about as everyone will continue to pay for it.
Me and the family don't watch much on the BBC - personally I watch Top Gear and sometimes listen to Radio4, and I use the BBC Wesite and weather, but I am sure I can find what I need from other private companies that use adverts for revenue. Only Top Gear I would miss, but that turns up on paid services like Netflix, or I could pay to watch it on iPlayer if the option was there - they already have a service that charges for old BBC programmes.
Why not just replace the TV licence with a subscription to watch and use BBC and related services, just like Sky? They are now forcing people to register for iPlayer. Or another option is for the the BBC to charge for "premium content", with all the ethically diverse that about 5 people watch and maybe the news still FoC.
If their content is really that good then they have nothing to worry about as everyone will continue to pay for it.
Me and the family don't watch much on the BBC - personally I watch Top Gear and sometimes listen to Radio4, and I use the BBC Wesite and weather, but I am sure I can find what I need from other private companies that use adverts for revenue. Only Top Gear I would miss, but that turns up on paid services like Netflix, or I could pay to watch it on iPlayer if the option was there - they already have a service that charges for old BBC programmes.
Edited by Emeye on Wednesday 19th July 23:49
Hosenbugler said:
Of course they do.Thats how they want you to think.The BBC is very much a friend to the left, thats why its the left who defend it the most. Its easy to assess over time the tilt of "news" outlets , BBC included. It does not take long to suss that the Daily Mirror is a Leftward organ, the DM the opposite , etc etc. They don't have a problem admitting such either, the BBC , who is supposed to be impartial , calims to be free and impartial , when it clearly is not , don't need to have an agenda to see it, it is (or was when I used to watch some iof it) even its own past employees state as such, Rod Liddle being a prime example.
Lol.TwigtheWonderkid said:
zygalski said:
Can't say I'm shocked about the thinly-veiled politics of envy being played out by so many devout right wing PH capitalists.
Hypocrisy...? Surely not!
+1Hypocrisy...? Surely not!
People love capitalism until someone they deem less worthy than them earns more than they do.
As someone has pointed out: very, very few people will be watching the footy highlights because it's presented by Gary Linneker.
- Footballers; they are the exception as the majority of them are superficial, arrogant, narcissistic, bell-ends - so yes, it does mildly annoy me that they make such obscene amounts. However, that is the private sector rather than funded by my taxes so I simply just don't watch football.
AJL308 said:
I don't agree. I don't care how much someone earns in the private sector*. I do care when the state (BBC) is paying people vast sums for doing what is basically a straightforward job which lots of people could also do.
As someone has pointed out: very, very few people will be watching the footy highlights because it's presented by Gary Linneker.
Your argument is flawed though isn't it? As someone has pointed out: very, very few people will be watching the footy highlights because it's presented by Gary Linneker.
- Footballers; they are the exception as the majority of them are superficial, arrogant, narcissistic, bell-ends - so yes, it does mildly annoy me that they make such obscene amounts. However, that is the private sector rather than funded by my taxes so I simply just don't watch football.
You pay for people in the private and public sector - If you don't like paying for employees of the BBC, don't have a TV licence and don't watch the BBC? (I may have missed that they've made a licence a requirement of ownership of a TV).
The same way if you don't like the s
t the Daily Mail put out (And employee), you don't buy their paper.Unless I'm mistaken you can NOT pay for the BBC, can't you?
Certainly you could not so long ago.
M.
p1stonhead said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Surprised PH isn't getting angry about Chris Harris not being in the top 150.
Im guessing he isnt directly employed? Isnt that what the list is?Same as Matt Le Blanc? Im sure they both have companies they work under?
Also part of the reason that Evan would have likely earned a big chunk on top of the £2,200,000 p.a. for the year that he presented Top Gear.
marcosgt said:
AJL308 said:
I don't agree. I don't care how much someone earns in the private sector*. I do care when the state (BBC) is paying people vast sums for doing what is basically a straightforward job which lots of people could also do.
As someone has pointed out: very, very few people will be watching the footy highlights because it's presented by Gary Linneker.
Your argument is flawed though isn't it? As someone has pointed out: very, very few people will be watching the footy highlights because it's presented by Gary Linneker.
- Footballers; they are the exception as the majority of them are superficial, arrogant, narcissistic, bell-ends - so yes, it does mildly annoy me that they make such obscene amounts. However, that is the private sector rather than funded by my taxes so I simply just don't watch football.
You pay for people in the private and public sector - If you don't like paying for employees of the BBC, don't have a TV licence and don't watch the BBC? (I may have missed that they've made a licence a requirement of ownership of a TV).
The same way if you don't like the s
t the Daily Mail put out (And employee), you don't buy their paper.Unless I'm mistaken you can NOT pay for the BBC, can't you?
Certainly you could not so long ago.
M.
You've also misunderstood the requirement for a TV licence. If you wish to use any sort of TV receiving equipment then you must pay the BBC for a licence. If I chose just to have Sky or Virgin and even if I could physically detune the BBC channels out of the Sky or Virgin box I would still need a TV licence in order to receive any program. So, no, I can NOT choose not to pay the BBC and still watch alternative broadcasters.
Ownership of a TV does not require a licence.
I see Dan Walker (he of Football Focus and Breakfast) had to tweet to defend himself being on the list but his co-presenter, Louise Minchin not being. It seems a BBC Exec who questioned him being paid more, didn't take account of Breakfast not being his only role. Wonder how much the Exec gets to not actually understand or check what the presenters are being paid for!
I couldn't care less that Showbiz people earn millions and millions of pounds. Doesn't bother me a bit. If Tom Cruise is worth so much to a movie producer then fine, pay the man, make your blockbuster film.
That is not what the BBC is about though. The BBC is funded by forcing people with a telly to pay a tax. It is part of the state.
What really gets my back up is that the BBC are spending these vast amounts on on-screen talent. If they deserve that much then by all means go and get a job thats pays that in the independent sector. I wish you good luck.
The BBC should be promoting young talent, making non-commercial programmes, and making cutting edge programmes - drama, documentary, news, arts, radio, accross the board. How many brilliant programes like Fleabag could they have made if they paid sensible salaries. That's what irks me.
Oh, and the gender pay gap is utterly indefensible. The solution is not raising the women's salaries. Just cut the mens salaries to match the womens pay levels.
That is not what the BBC is about though. The BBC is funded by forcing people with a telly to pay a tax. It is part of the state.
What really gets my back up is that the BBC are spending these vast amounts on on-screen talent. If they deserve that much then by all means go and get a job thats pays that in the independent sector. I wish you good luck.
The BBC should be promoting young talent, making non-commercial programmes, and making cutting edge programmes - drama, documentary, news, arts, radio, accross the board. How many brilliant programes like Fleabag could they have made if they paid sensible salaries. That's what irks me.
Oh, and the gender pay gap is utterly indefensible. The solution is not raising the women's salaries. Just cut the mens salaries to match the womens pay levels.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
zygalski said:
Randy Winkman said:
TEKNOPUG said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
zygalski said:
Can't say I'm shocked about the thinly-veiled politics of envy being played out by so many devout right wing PH capitalists.
Hypocrisy...? Surely not!
+1Hypocrisy...? Surely not!
People love capitalism until someone they deem less worthy than them earns more than they do.
Supply & demand. If MOTD is failing, the Beeb would be under pressure to cut costs.
Some PHers seem to think that people currently in the public sector are a different caste who don't have a choice.The presenters salaries are quite high, but that is the going rate and if the BBC or any other broadcaster wants to attract talent, they have to offer an attractive package. Superficially, they jobs look quite easy, but people who are good at their jobs always make it look easy.
Good luck to them, mind you, I don't think Steve Wright should be paid much more than washers.
Good luck to them, mind you, I don't think Steve Wright should be paid much more than washers.
langtounlad said:
How on earth can anyone believe that Jeremy Vine is worth that amount. 
I have to turn over when he appears and most people that I know seem to hold a similar opinion.
I have always been totally perplexed by his popularity, given he is so irritating and flat and discusses issues that not even the Sun would care much about.I have to turn over when he appears and most people that I know seem to hold a similar opinion.
Chris Evans is tolerable but only at a fraction of that cost.
I understand why Norton and Lineker get paid good money.
marcosgt said:
Hard to see why Evans earns what he does JUST for hosting a radio show...
OK, I'll bite. Radio listening figures have a distinct pattern - there are "most popular times" and "less popular times". The weekday breakfast show on a radio station will always have the biggest audience of any show on the station. Coupled with that, BBC Radio 2 is the most listened-to radio station in Europe (not just the UK). It follows that the weekday breakfast show presenter position on BBC Radio 2 is highly coveted. It's a unique job without parallel in the commercial radio world. It's not a job you take on lightly and there are not many presenters who can be entrusted with the responsibility of leading the flagship radio programme on the most popular radio station in Europe for the countries' public service broadcaster.Creating great radio is not easy. Creating 15 hours a week of great radio week in week out that is fresh and engaging is even harder and takes a lot of time, effort and talent. Whether you or I think the BBC Radio 2 week day breakfast show is great or not is irrelevant, the point is that just over 9 million people a week do and they tune in for it week in, week out.
When you put all that together it's not hard (IMO) to see why the presenter of that show is going to attract a sizable salary.
Randy Winkman said:
TEKNOPUG said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
zygalski said:
Can't say I'm shocked about the thinly-veiled politics of envy being played out by so many devout right wing PH capitalists.
Hypocrisy...? Surely not!
+1Hypocrisy...? Surely not!
People love capitalism until someone they deem less worthy than them earns more than they do.
A commercial TV has the pressure of having to keep audience figures rising, as otherwise advertisers will pay less. The BBC has no such pressure- they can afford to bring in young staff, and train them up and give them time to develop.
They don't need to keep taking back average talent such as Zoe Ball who have been out of work a long time and so have little negotiating power, and offer them market value straight away, same happened with others.
What the BBC don't accept, is that the BBC itself is what makes the star the star. Those who leave tend to decline- see Jonathan Ross for example.
For me as a football fan, I'd much rather see Manish, Mark Chapman, Dan Walker or George Riley present MOTD on vastly smaller salaries than waste £2 million on Gary Lineker.
Yes, he's got that "gravity" because he's been there, done it, but first and foremost, the MOTD presenter should be a professional presenter rather than an ex-pro trained to be a presenter IMO. The four mentioned above are all decent presenters although Riley is slightly tainted by the fact he's on the awful "Football On Five" show on C5. That show is st down to the weak production values and crap ideas rather than Riley himself though.
Yes, he's got that "gravity" because he's been there, done it, but first and foremost, the MOTD presenter should be a professional presenter rather than an ex-pro trained to be a presenter IMO. The four mentioned above are all decent presenters although Riley is slightly tainted by the fact he's on the awful "Football On Five" show on C5. That show is s
t down to the weak production values and crap ideas rather than Riley himself though. 
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff