, according to Media Guardian’s Leigh Holmwood. Not surprisingly, just like this chap (Ned that is, not Justin), the Newsnight turkeys aren’t keen on the approach of Christmas:
All of the flagship BBC2 programme’s 15 correspondents, including political editor Martha Kearney and veteran journalist Michael Crick, wrote to Mr Barron last week as part of the campaign against the compulsory cuts.
The journalists, who are all faced with selection for compulsory redundancy, told Mr Barron they would not fill in draft CVs or meet with him as part of the process.
“We are writing to express our deep concern about your decision to press ahead with the compulsory redundancy process on Newsnight,” the letter said.
“We will not cooperate with it. We will not be filling out the draft CVs. Nor will any correspondent be meeting you or your team individually as part of the selection process.
Poor Mr. Barron. Perhaps a good place to start would be with whoever swallowed (or went along with) the NuLab spinners and their exclusive (oh yes!) ‘cripple’ email non-story. The Newsnight staffers whinge:
“We note that some £546,000 in bonuses was paid to senior management this year. In the context of this, losing two high-profile reporters to save a much smaller sum, with all the resultant stress, bad publicity and loss of goodwill seems to reflect perverse priorities within the BBC.
I have some sympathy with that argument, but a much better target for huge cost savings at the BBC is the £18m being paid to the tiresome Jonathan Woss over the next three years. It’s an obscene amount of money, especially for someone who does nothing that special. The BBC argue that Woss is at the ‘top of his game’ (presumably that game is exploiting the poor bloody tellytaxpayers) and that they need to be competitive (there’s a novel concept for the BBC).
Here’s a suggestion, pay Woss £1m per year – it’s still money that most people wouldn’t even dream of earning, and a lot more than he’s worth, and it’d save the BBC £15m over the next three years. Marvellous, and I won’t even charge you a consultancy fee for my advice.
“Ah, but” you say! Well, if Jonathan doesn’t think a million a year is worth it for all of his services to the BBC, simply start a new Saturday night reality show, here’s a name to conjure with, “How do you solve a pwoblem like Mawia?” – I’m sure that out of a population of 60 million people we’d be able to find plenty of new and talented people who’d be thrilled to work for a million a year. Another free idea, and a new Saturday night programme into the bargain!
After that you can do similar programmes to find and nurture new British talent in place of all the hugely expensive moronic has-beens that seem to populate the BBC just now. Even Gordon Brown might smile at the creation of new jobs and the uncovering of new talent.
I’ll concede though that we do need to retain the services of Terry Wogan for the purposes of the Eurovision song contest – a genuine national institution, gently exposing and mocking the dishonesty of sundry Johnny-foreigners as they incestuously vote for one another year after year irrespective of the music. Well worth it!
Turning back to Newsnight:
Presenters such as Jeremy Paxman and Kirsty Wark are not affected.
That’s a pity – Kirsty Nark should have been dispensed with long ago – the business with Jack McConnell was so blatant and embarrassing that I’m surprised even she has the brass neck to maintain her pretense of impartiality at Newsnight. She and her husband have done quite well filling their boots at tellytaxpayers expense, so she’d be quite comfortably off even without the Newsnight gig.
Mercifully for you Beeboids:
BBC News had proposed cutting 108 posts. However, the number of compulsory redundancies has been brought down to about 10.
So life’s not as tough at the BBC trough as it might have been, more’s the pity, for those of us keen to see more exposure to reality at BBC News.
Nice going Andrew.
There the story – probaby an urban myth – of the man who went to the matchbox company, and said: ” I can save you a fortune!”
“How?” they asked.
“Ah, I’m not telling until you sign a contract giving me half your savings.”
Anyway, after much huffing and puffing, the matchbox company agree,and sign.
“Well, ” they ask, “How do we save a fortune?”
“Simple,” he said. “Only put sand paper on one side of the matchbox.”
Everytime I watch the news, with two higly-paid newsreaders, I think of this story.
Just think how much money they would save. Just think how less embarassing it would be to watch, not having to see one squirm while thinking of something to do while the other is reading. You can see them thinking: “Shall I look at the camera? Shall at look at my fellow newsreader? Shall I nod in agreement, or shake my head for a ‘bad’ story? Shall I look at my notes?”
Bring back one newsreader, one desk, head-and-shoulders in view only – no arm-waving. And no more “Hello Billy”, “Hello Bobby” stuff!!!
Sorry – than anon was me.
Chuffer – I agree. It also happened on the busses – where there used to be a driver and conductor – now theres just a driver. But this mostly only happens in the private sector. The public sector which includes the BBC is always overstaffed as there is no need to see a return on their investment.
I once asked for a cost breakdown of how much al-beeb spent on sending J.Humphreys and others to Basra.(There were already reporters based there.) Then I asked why so many ‘staffers’ are running around the USA in both radio and TV.
Well, you guessed it. Stonewalled! I was told the Freedom of Information Act exempted them from revealing such expenses because it was “commercially sensitive”. How much is the licence fee now?
And we don’t need highly paid celebrity newsreaders. There are plenty of people who can read an autocue in level tones and ask harmless questions in scripted interviews.
True, Trevor McDonald was most ridiculous example of a celebrity newsreader, but that doesn’t excuse the BBC using our money that way.
Didn’t there use to be a saying about the BBC, “we won’t make you rich, but we will make you famous”? So it should be again.
Purple:
Damn right – sack Spangles Kaplinsky NOW!
I used to quite like Kirsty*, in a sort of mildly lewd way, and don’t hold her millionaire status against her, unless she is haranguing some other poor sod for getting too much dosh!
(*but Emily is much more fanciable now)
What’s happened to toothsome Jenny Scott the business bird?
“The BBC argue that Woss is at the ‘top of his game’ … and that they need to be competitive.”
Here’s a thing: why do they need to be competitive? “Oh, to justify the ‘licence fee’,” doesn’t answer the question; it’s a circular argument (they need the “fee” to remain aloof from commercial pressure…).
Suppose there was only one BBC TV channel, and one radio channel, costing, say, £20 a year. Why would that be bad? The “cultural bastion” mob would still have their champion (indeed, not having umpteen channels to fill with varied “content” might concentrate the Corporation’s minds wonderfully on the job they’re supposed to be doing, instead of serving up endless pale imitations of commercial shows). And people would be better disposed towards paying the fee even if they didn’t watch as much as they do now. They might even start regarding BBC with the affection that it thinks they do again.
I’d still rather see it “privatised” altogether. (“BBC Group plc” has a lovely ring to it, don’t you think? We can but dream…) But its expansion into a tax-funded media colossus agressively taking commercial competitors head-on is completely beyond my comprehension. Surely that isn’t what it’s for? Or is it? Why, then?
I can’t help thinking it’s all just a scam.
I applaud the highlighting of the huge monies paid to unworthy al beeb executives or worse still so called stars, but I have an even better idea.
Save the entire fee and let al beeb be privatised or die.
Obviously “quality” programming like newsnight would survive without cuts then wouldn’t it…