BBC

Just sat reading the salaries of the BBC staff who earn above the £150,000 mark and if I find it astonishing how these people can justify earning this much money (John Humprys apart) who as admitted it's too much money he gets paid.

I understand there is a gulf in pay between female and male presenters but surely the point here is they're all paid too much,  I find it astonishing that Lineker has been gloating - I know who my twit of the week is going to be next week!

Aargh. Had a relatively detailed post ready to send which was eaten by my browser! Here's a quick precis:

The figures may seem high for a public sector organisation but bear in mind the BBC are competing with other private sector broadcasters and therefore need to pay the going rate.

Here's a good run down of some of the economic reasons for their bargaining power, so to speak:

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/07/the-economics-of-bbc-pay.html

If the BBC needs to pay the going rate for sports coverage, why should paying the market rate for their 'talent' be any different?

Of course, fundamentally, you'll hear a lot about this as it gives the Tories and their supporting press something else to bash the BBC with - you should never forget they would dearly love to privatise/sell of the Beeb because they are fundamentally opposed to the concept of an impartial public broadcaster and the right-wing media would love to get rid of a competitor.

No doubt that some of the gender pay inequality is very bad but this just mirrors the rest of our society to a certain degree.

For the most part I agree with Maringer, the people we're talking about aren't working a normal 9-5 job, and the money they earn is based on the viewers they'll bring in as they are the star attraction. But people like Gary Lineker doesn't fall into that category. In his case, as with most sports presenters, the sport is the show. Yes good commentary is a must, but he doesn't even do that.  Would Match of the Day viewer numbers be affected at all if you replaced Lineker with just about anyone else? Personally I watch it for the football, and usually fast foward through the collective drivel (although I do stop sometimes to see if I can spot Whittles handywork on Shearers face)

The fact that Shearer's 'contributions' to punditry are considered to be worth £400k is pretty awful. Any occasion where he says anything interesting or insightful will be the first.

Everytime I see or hear bloody Chris Evans I switch him off,

£2.2 million they must be bonkers.

I know this might not be the view of some on here,

BUT

Its mine

It's the usual knee-jerk reaction to the publication of these salaries. Which other flipping broadcasters do this? None. What have they got to hide. Don't bash the Beeb, skin Sky.

I think the harder you work the less you get paid,

Talk about somebody else doing their work and you get paid a fortune.

Quoted from grimsby pete

Everytime I see or hear bloody Chris Evans I switch him off,

£2.2 million they must be bonkers.

I know this might not be the view of some on here,

BUT

Its mine

you got my vote...

If Radio 1 paid the wages Radio 2 did it might actually be listenable. I can't understand how annoying twits like Chris Evans and Steve Wright can be paid so much. Steve Wright in particular doesn't earn his wage. Approximately 60% of his programme is 90 second long jingles and flipping factoids. An opinion of himself  even higher than his ratings - the big show, my bottom.

Quoted from LH

If Radio 1 paid the wages Radio 2 did it might actually be listenable. I can't understand how annoying twits like Chris Evans and Steve Wright can be paid so much. Steve Wright in particular doesn't earn his wage. Approximately 60% of his programme is 90 second long jingles and flipping factoids. An opinion of himself  even higher than his ratings - the big show, my bottom.

I think all DJ's were the annoying twits at school that nobody liked. Of them all, Steve Wright is probably the most annoying and his flipping stupid died black hair looks atrocious. I hate most of them with a passion.They have no discernible talent and yet somehow think we are interested in what they get up to in their spare time. Once at work, someone had on Radio 1 and that anus Moyles talked incessantly for a good 10 minutes about what him and all his cronies got up to at the weekend. Just shut the intercourse up and play some music you fat twit. I put a hammer through the radio, which didn't belong to me and had to buy the owner a new one. It was worth it. Thank intercourse for internet radio and Spotify

There, that feels better.

Forgot to add, Ant and Dec get paid £30 million a year- yes i did say £30 million. Just let that sink in. flipping incredible isn't it?

Don't even get me started on Ken Bruce. Twatmaster.

Quoted from LH

Don't even get me started on Ken Bruce. Twatmaster.

Can't listen to the condescending anus. The only DJ i can stomach is Mark Radcliffe.

Ant and Dec don't work for the BBC though .

Quoted from chaos33

Ant and Dec don't work for the BBC though .

Precisely. Everyone is arsing on about how the BBC wastes money.

Quoted from chaos33

Ant and Dec don't work for the BBC though .

I know. Was just trying to put things into perspective.

Well don't. We won't have any of that perspective sh1t on here, OK?!

Noted.

Quoted from Maringer

If the BBC needs to pay the going rate for sports coverage, why should paying the market rate for their 'talent' be any different?  

Maybe because it's funded by a cruel compulsory tax where people go to prison for refusing to pay.

Quoted from ginnywings

Forgot to add, Ant and Dec get paid £30 million a year- yes i did say £30 million. Just let that sink in. flipping incredible isn't it?

So what they work for the private sector the market dictates, some footballers get that a month good luck to them.

Quoted from Maringer

Of course, fundamentally, you'll hear a lot about this as it gives the Tories and their supporting press something else to bash the BBC with - you should never forget they would dearly love to privatise/sell of the Beeb because they are fundamentally opposed to the concept of an impartial public broadcaster and the right-wing media would love to get rid of a competitor .

Impartial broadcaster are you having a flipping laugh?

Quoted from Grim74

So what they work for the private sector the market dictates, some footballers get that a month good luck to them.

Care to name them?

Quoted from ginnywings

Care to name them?

Yeah ok but I'm sure even you get the point.

Quoted from Grim74

Impartial broadcaster are you having a flipping laugh?

Well, yeah, we know their news arm is controlled by right wingers (James Harding, Andrew Neil, Sarah Sands) who were formerly employed by the non-domiciled billionaires who own much of the right-wing media. And we know that multiple academic studies have shown BBC bias against the Labour party or Corbyn in recent years. Oh, and the BBC Trust admitted that their political editor broke impartiality and accuracy rules when misrepresenting something said by Corbyn in an interview last year, but, apart from that, they are theoretically impartial.

Quoted from Grim74

Yeah ok but I'm sure even you get the point.

Damning with faint praise.

Quoted from Grim74

So what they work for the private sector the market dictates, some footballers get that a month good luck to them.

Doesn't justify it.

Quoted from Maringer

Well, yeah, we know their news arm is controlled by right wingers (James Harding, Andrew Neil, Sarah Sands) who were formerly employed by the non-domiciled billionaires who own much of the right-wing media. And we know that multiple academic studies have shown BBC bias against the Labour party or Corbyn in recent years. Oh, and the BBC Trust admitted that their political editor broke impartiality and accuracy rules when misrepresenting something said by Corbyn in an interview last year, but, apart from that, they are theoretically impartial.

I'm not just talking about the news arm who do tend to go with the headlines from certain papers but still spew their liberal agenda, can you not just admit the BBC in general is totally biased regardless? Agree they were biased against corbyn at the time as they was against Cameron and now turned on May, but they have always been very much pro Labour, look at the election coverage here the USA and France totally biased coverage, what about Brexit again totally biased, and they have been hammered on the Gaza - Israel conflict, how you can say they are impartial is beyond a joke.

Giving me one out of the ten executives and two correspondents that may be classed as from the right doesn't prove the BBC's impartiality either, many top managers and presenters big names who work or have worked at the BBC are on record time and time again, Comfirming the bias there, the place is stuffed full of guardian reading leftys and leftwing propaganda according to them, I posted you the names on the Corbyn forum not long ago.