BBC to Reveal Stars Earnings
Discussion
The only real legitimate gripe people can have with this, I think, is the disparity between male and female salaries, and even then I think it is a more nuanced argument than meets the eye.
Problem is nuanced arguments are boring, aren't they? Actually looking into what it costs the BBC to keep these people takes a lot of effort. Well, some effort anyway. Who has time for effort nowadays when you can just size someone up and go "they're on six figures? ER MAH GERD". It's easier to believe that the BBC just decides to overpay these people because why not? Likewise no one would dare contemplate the notion that some of the female presenters who are paid less might not actually be the box office draw - so to speak - as their male counterparts are. It's easier to be reductive and compare everyone on the basis of them being interchangeable gendered blobs.
Basically this is Brexit Mk 2 - the whole country sitting in judgement over things where 99%+ have neither the experience, capacity or desire to fully understand. The outcome is inevitable - people whining about how because they don't think Gary Lineker "isn't worth it", then he isn't - because everyone's opinion nowadays is equally valuable and beyond question.
Problem is nuanced arguments are boring, aren't they? Actually looking into what it costs the BBC to keep these people takes a lot of effort. Well, some effort anyway. Who has time for effort nowadays when you can just size someone up and go "they're on six figures? ER MAH GERD". It's easier to believe that the BBC just decides to overpay these people because why not? Likewise no one would dare contemplate the notion that some of the female presenters who are paid less might not actually be the box office draw - so to speak - as their male counterparts are. It's easier to be reductive and compare everyone on the basis of them being interchangeable gendered blobs.
Basically this is Brexit Mk 2 - the whole country sitting in judgement over things where 99%+ have neither the experience, capacity or desire to fully understand. The outcome is inevitable - people whining about how because they don't think Gary Lineker "isn't worth it", then he isn't - because everyone's opinion nowadays is equally valuable and beyond question.
Charles Moore in Saturday's Telegraph made a good point. The Beeb are playing up the embarrassment of pay inequality because it drowns out the public anger at the levels of pay they're all getting. What might happen is instead of the BBC reducing male pay to match women, they will raise the female pay and whole point of the mandatory revelation will backfire. BBC will waste more, not less, on 'talent'. An agent said on the news yesterday that the BBC don't understand just how furious the women are about this. He, in his turn, doesn't understand how bloody angry the licence payers are at the levels of pay across the board. A script reader on a backwater news bulletin will be paid more than a consultant surgeon which in my view is unacceptable.
Durzel said:
Likewise no one would dare contemplate the notion that some of the female presenters who are paid less might not actually be the box office draw - so to speak - as their male counterparts are. It's easier to be reductive and compare everyone on the basis of them being interchangeable gendered blobs.
To be fair, there may be elements and examples where the male presenter(s) on a show are actually more 'bankable' than their female counterparts, but there are also some glaring instances - particularly in news and studio type current affairs shows - where that's most certainly not the case and yet a significant gender pay gap exists.What irks me is the assumption (of some) that the solution is to pay women more, rather than the men (or some of the men at least) less. The cult of profligacy - other people's money - is partly how the BBC got to where it is now.
Whatever, the whole affair is yet more evidence of the utter waste and insularity of the BBC. It's run by and for antifragiles.
Digga said:
To be fair, there may be elements and examples where the male presenter(s) on a show are actually more 'bankable' than their female counterparts, but there are also some glaring instances - particularly in news and studio type current affairs shows - where that's most certainly not the case and yet a significant gender pay gap exists.
What irks me is the assumption (of some) that the solution is to pay women more, rather than the men (or some of the men at least) less. The cult of profligacy - other people's money - is partly how the BBC got to where it is now.
Whatever, the whole affair is yet more evidence of the utter waste and insularity of the BBC. It's run by and for antifragiles.
Yup, I agree.. there is a debate to be had certainly, and I'm not going to say for one minute that there aren't instances where the difference in salaries is unexplainable. What irks me is the assumption (of some) that the solution is to pay women more, rather than the men (or some of the men at least) less. The cult of profligacy - other people's money - is partly how the BBC got to where it is now.
Whatever, the whole affair is yet more evidence of the utter waste and insularity of the BBC. It's run by and for antifragiles.
At the same time in so far as salaried positions go, in pretty much every company going there would be carnage if everyone knew what everyone else was on simply because in many instances people are paid not what the company (or others) feel they are worth, but what the company thinks they can get away with paying them. That's why it's suggested that people who stick around in a job for too long are not only poisoning their own career prospects, but are certainly on a lower salary than they could be.
Doesn't excuse this practice, but it's far from being either new nor "a BBC thing".
Edited by Durzel on Monday 24th July 16:35
Digga said:
What irks me is the assumption (of some) that the solution is to pay women more, rather than the men (or some of the men at least) less. The cult of profligacy - other people's money - is partly how the BBC got to where it is now.
Whatever, the whole affair is yet more evidence of the utter waste and insularity of the BBC. It's run by and for antifragiles.
What amazes me is that the BBC doesn't appear to have even considered this as part of the debate. All the news programmes I heard over the weekend simply speak of the gap, not the massive salaries paid and the disparity between them and 'real world' jobs. Whatever, the whole affair is yet more evidence of the utter waste and insularity of the BBC. It's run by and for antifragiles.
Is it justified to pay lottery win money to anyone out of what is, in effect taxation?
motco said:
A script reader on a backwater news bulletin will be paid more than a consultant surgeon which in my view is unacceptable.
By describing a news anchor-man/woman as a script reader in an attempt to denigrate the job just magnifies your complete ignorance of the skillset involved. C70R said:
As I would have hypothesised, you clearly don't know many people. His show (and its station) are the most popular and well-listened by a COUNTRY MILE.
Do you think giving the gig to Ken Bruce at a quarter of Chris Evans salary would result in the breakfast becoming less popular? C70R said:
Dazed and Confused said:
I'm pleased Evans enjoys his work, no one I know does.
As I would have hypothesised, you clearly don't know many people. His show (and its station) are the most popular and well-listened by a COUNTRY MILE.Dazed and Confused said:
But that doesn't mean it's good, just down to the number of people able to receive the station he works for. How popular do think Evans would be if he had some decent opposition or working for Capital? Nick Grimshaw has been a disaster and his shows ratings have tanked.
Eh? Are you saying the Radio 1 breakfast show ratings have tanked because Grimshaw is a disaster, but that Chris Evans' strong viewing figures are only due to the lack of alternative.... dazed and confused indeed?In order to try and bring some actual reality to this debate, does anyone know what people doing similar jobs on rival tv stations are paid? I'm thinking ITV & Sky, as opposed to C4 & C5.
Because people can bang on as much as they like about staff being overpaid, but to know if they are or not, is not to compare them to nurses, surgeons, hedge fund managers or footballers, but to compare them to those doing the same job for similar organisations.
In my mind, I have it that the movement of staff seems to be from the BBC to ITV, and not visa versa. That being the case, that seems counter intuitive that the BBC are overpaying.
Because people can bang on as much as they like about staff being overpaid, but to know if they are or not, is not to compare them to nurses, surgeons, hedge fund managers or footballers, but to compare them to those doing the same job for similar organisations.
In my mind, I have it that the movement of staff seems to be from the BBC to ITV, and not visa versa. That being the case, that seems counter intuitive that the BBC are overpaying.
Raygun said:
The Surveyor said:
Chris Evans' strong viewing figures are only due to the lack of alternative....
If we're all being honest that's exactly why his listening figures are strong.motco said:
Charles Moore in Saturday's Telegraph made a good point.
Charles Moore, like most journalists, probably had dreams of progressing from his local rag onto the nationals, then maybe radio, and then TV. Covering events across the globe, reporting back, live from wherever. His talent took him so far on the journey, but then he reached the limit of his abilities. No wonder he's annoyed. motco said:
Charles Moore in Saturday's Telegraph made a good point. The Beeb are playing up the embarrassment of pay inequality because it drowns out the public anger at the levels of pay they're all getting. What might happen is instead of the BBC reducing male pay to match women, they will raise the female pay and whole point of the mandatory revelation will backfire. BBC will waste more, not less, on 'talent'. An agent said on the news yesterday that the BBC don't understand just how furious the women are about this. He, in his turn, doesn't understand how bloody angry the licence payers are at the levels of pay across the board. A script reader on a backwater news bulletin will be paid more than a consultant surgeon which in my view is unacceptable.
The Telegraph has more anti-BBC stories than anti-EU ones."A script reader on a backwater news bulletin will be paid more than a consultant surgeon which in my view is unacceptable." Who said that? You or him? Do readers of backwater news bulletins get paid more than £150K?
Raygun said:
If we're all being honest that's exactly why his listening figures are strong.
If we were being honest, we would know that there are loads of alternative radio stations on at the same time as Chris Evens BBC Radio 2 Breakfast show, only they are a but crap and not worth listening too.The Surveyor said:
Raygun said:
If we're all being honest that's exactly why his listening figures are strong.
If we were being honest, we would know that there are loads of alternative radio stations on at the same time as Chris Evens BBC Radio 2 Breakfast show, only they are a but crap and not worth listening too.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff