Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
Mr Moderator
Any chance of getting a specific thread about the obscene salaries the few get at the BBC, such as the latest 10 million for Anne Robinson! (the equivalent of 200 average paid staff a year).
Surely this sort of thing, like those for Wogan, Ross etc is taking enormous resource out of the BBC that would be better spent tackling the bias at the BBC and on quality programme making.
Dr R
I don’t think I’ve ever said the BBC is always right? I’ve said before I can’t really critisise other BBC staff on here, if they want to defend themselves or certain points they should do so! But don’t assume I slavishly defend all that is BBC. What would be the point?
But on Spooks I’m a bit of a fan and I find this moaning about who’s the baddie-of-the-week a bit pointless. Even 24 allows the odd US bad guy!
BaggieJonathan;
Here’s what the BBC says about Anne
“The story is untrue. While options are being considered, no final decision has yet been taken on what might replace Neighbours.
The BBC doesn’t discuss presenter contracts but described the notion that it was paying Anne Robinson £10m as ‘fanciful with no basis in the truth’.”
You and I have doubtless both seen dozens – if not hundreds – of dramas in which high-ranking CIA or NSA types are cast the wicked villains.
Many of these have been Hollywood movies or US TV series.
Would you consider them ‘anti-American’?
John Reith | 14.11.07 – 4:32 pm
From Hollywood? That well known bastion of right-wing, conservative values?
I see that Richard Black has posted an article on the Item he did asking for sceptics to say where the bias was.
Most climate optimists (in his eye sceptics) think the BBC and him are so far into the Al Gore camp there is no point in even considering replying, and those that did were given the treatment.
Climate change is truly a religion at the BBC.
The BBC doesn’t discuss presenter contracts……..
David Gregory (BBC) | 14.11.07 – 5:51 pm | #
What does it do? Just give them what they demand without question.
David Gregory:
“I don’t think I’ve ever said the BBC is always right?”
You’ve never said they’re ever wrong either David.
Anonymous | 14.11.07 – 6:30 pm
From Hollywood? That well known bastion of right-wing, conservative values?
You rather make my point for me.
But I’ll make it myself anyway:
There’s a tendency hereabouts to call any criticism of Bush/the present administration/the Republican Party/the religious right …etc ‘anti-americanism’.
By that standard, the Democratic Party is ‘anti-american’.
What happens if La Clinton wins?
Will it suddenly become anti-american to criticise left liberal feminists?
I thought it was well known that Liberals tend to hate their own country?
Only Conservatives can be true patriots..
RE: Critisising the BBC
You’ve never said they’re ever wrong either David.
Reg Hammer
Reg, that’s a little unfair. I enjoy debating here and I think it’s important. But I’m posting under my own name on a blog that is anti my employer. It would be easy for comments to be taken out of context. I simply don’t have the status of someone like Jeremy Paxman who can critise the BBC and go on the record doing it!
And finally there’s nothing to stop those being critised coming on here to defend themselves or the BBC. It’s not up to me to fight all their battles for them.
Beeboids David Gregory et al
“The BBC doesn’t discuss presenter contracts…” “fanciful with no basis in the truth”
Strangely enough this is what was said when stories of other presenter’s salaries came out, only for them to turn out not fanciful and to have every basis in the truth.
For your information the scale of the isuue at a time when programming is under pressure and employees are being made redundant is huge.
BBC “ordinary” staff pay scales:
Click to access SR2006000109_Salary_Scales.pdf
BBC “high ups” remuneration:
Click to access SR2006000149_Directors_Remuneration.pdf
As an example the average for special correspondents:
Click to access SR2006000492_Average_Salary_Specialist_TV_Correspondent.pdf
The big bucks fat cat “stars”:
BBC’s own article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4922226.stm
Others:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/apr/19/broadcasting.bbc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4919678.stm
http://www.heatworld.com/Article.aspx?articleid=2721
Even the BBC plans a ‘review’:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/13/nbbc113.xml
“Talent costs understandably raise questions for the public. So the trust must ensure it has a proper understanding of how the BBC operates in these markets to satisfy itself that the greatest value is being created for audiences.
Later this year the Trust plans to commission an external study about the BBC’s major role in the talent market.”
Apparently some people’s ‘presenters’ are other people’s ‘talent’ so thats ok no economy with the truth there then…
To the BBC employees and apologists that come on here.
Whilst it is refreshing to see you posting under your own name it might also be useful for you to post under another name / alias at least from time to time in order that your anonymity can reflect full and frank honesty in your responses.
It’s possible Baggie, but I’m skeptical given the lack of sourcing and the timing. I’m pretty confident the amount is nowhere near that..
“I’m pretty confident the amount is nowhere near that..
Ben | 15.11.07 – 10:48 am |”
You mean ten thousand rather than ten million? Somehow I doubt it.
Or would ‘nowhere near’ mean five or seven million rather than ten million and still obscene and unjustifiable.
Whilst it is refreshing to see you posting under your own name it might also be useful for you to post under another name / alias at least from time to time in order that your anonymity can reflect full and frank honesty in your responses.
BaggieJonathan
The ONE time I did that (a little refreshed and late at night!) Andrew “outed” me. So I decided honesty was the best and only policy but that does impose certain limits.
Ooooh, that’s a good point. Andrew, are you listening? Unless it’s a “You’re all morons” cretinous post (we had one of those a few months ago), I’d suggest BBBC has a _public_ policy of _not_ disclosing BBCers through IP address info.
That might encourage a bit more interaction.
Although it would be good if BBCers could append (BBC) to their pseudonym.
A
David G
So we should assume that you are, like your employers, always being economic with the truth?
At last! An admission of truth!
Dr R
No. I always tell the truth. In my professional life and on here.
David Gregory:
You’re too nice a chap to be working at the BBC David. How on EARTH did you get the job with such credentials?