John Humphrys’s reticence about his pay packet wasn’t down to personal shyness after all. They’re restrained by a BBC gagging order.
Harriet Harman’s equality bill has its uses, says Andrew Gimson of the Telegraph. It seems that will un-gag them.
“How brilliant of Miss Harman to turn this modish argument against the BBC, that home of modish causes.”
Not Shy
Bookmark the permalink.
sue
you didnt think this out at all did you???
how could the bbc let us know what they pay thier "talent" when in truth its more of a barter system.
johnny diamond gets his weight in cocaine.
jeremy bowen gets thirthy pieces of silver.
anne diamond gets a bathtub full of buckfast. and visitation rights to her kids
jonathon ross gets a free hair dye for his missus.
terry wogan gets to stay here.
graham norton gets ten hairless 18 year old boys.
if you can add any other deals let me know
ngg
"TV and radio personalities are "special people doing special jobs", even if certain members of the audience do not like them."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7430961.stm
One service Brown can do before he is forced out is carry out his promised review and publication of BBC pay and expenses.
Once that tsunami hits, they will be totally washed away in the tide of public anger.
What is this obsession "the public" has with knowing who earns what? And why? What will it achieve, and where – in the BBC's case – does it end?
Start with Wossy and publish a list going down ALL presenters? But then the public will want to know what the top back of house people earn too, won't they? Russell T. Davis for example. The producers, the directors, the people who sign the stars' cheques?
Then where? When will the public be satisfied? When Edna the cleaner is vilified in the Daily Mail for earning a bit more than the average cleaner?
How about "oh, the tax payer also helps fund ITV and Channel 4 through the back door (nowhere near as much as the Beeb's pot of gold, but they still see some of our cash), so I NEED NEED NEED to see how much Hannah Sperrit earns for Primeaval"?
And finally, and I suppose this is the key point, what makes anyone think this information will make life better? It sure as hell won't reduce the licence fee any more than exposing MPs' expenses will reduce my tax bill.
Apologies for going on a bit. And no, I'm not Beeb – although I did do some freelance work for them once. For those interested, yes the newsroom is a left-wing haven, and no they don't realise they are left wing; they genuinely believe they are impartial.
to answer the above.
WE PAY FOR IT!!!! DO YOU GET THAT??
I WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE ITS MY FUCKING MONEY!
when you pay for those anti semetic liberal facist scumbags out of your own pocket then ill stop asking.
is it that hard to understand??
I want to know – because I believe presenters are grossly overpaid, simply because the BBC can do as it chooses. If they are overpaid, the BBC is inefficient in its use of public funds.
That is – it is abusing the licence fee.
The BBC is resisting even the release of bracketed infi, eg how many presenters get more than £1 million, more than half a million etc.
And no-one is asking how much junior and middle-rank staff get.
But thanks for your observations on doing some work for the BBC -and on the lefty nest at the news side.
The salaries of those who work for America's National Public Radio are available to all. What's so special about BBC employees?
'Daily Mail' refers to the amount of some BBC top salaries here:
"John Humphrys refuses to reveal salary in on-air clash with Tory MP over BBC salary scandal" (4 June).
'Mail' puts salary of BBC's John Humphrys at £150,000 a year.
But as 'DB' says above (9:26 pm), there is no comprehensive information on this.
Surely John Humphrys is earnimg WAY more than £150,000.
Remember a couple of years ago, after Gilligan, BBC folk were told they could not write articles for the press. Humphrys continued to write articles. At the time there was talk that he was on over£250,000 – and no denials.
If BBC salaries ever do get revealed, you should all be glad they banned only three months ago – under pressure because of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand's antics – on-air talent from being executive producers of the shows in which they appear.
I'm pretty sure that insane salary they quoted for Ross is just his salary as talent, and doesn't include whatever cut he gets as exec. producer, or, as in Brand's case (can't remember about Ross), the owner of the production company which the BBC – and you all, by extension – pays for the privilege of broadcasting their genius.
Ex-Beeboid 6:56
I need to know how much the Beeboids are paid, because it is my money !
I am having , by law, to pay them for pushing a political agenda which I loathe.
The licence fee should be scrapped and the BBC consigned to the dustbin of history !
George R 10:13
I would imagine Humphreys is on £500,000 to £1m maybe more.
We should be told so we can judge whether we are getting value for money.
Personally, I wouldn't employ him to clean the toilet.
Grant 9:12
Yes, that's the problem, we licencepayers can only speculate.
The 'Mail' has this on Paxman (3 years ago):
"So, Mr Paxman, do you really get £1m a year?"
(20 April 2006.)
[Extract}:
"Jeremy Paxman has emerged as one of the BBC's highest-paid stars, with an annual salary of almost £1million.
"The notoriously brusque Newsnight presenter earns £240,000 for asking the questions on BBC2' s University Challenge – the equivalent of £7,741 a show, it emerged yesterday.
{…}
"That is on top of his Newsnight salary – believed to be around £700,000 – bringing his annual BBC pay package to just under the million mark."
Paxman and Humphrys have crossed swords before:
'Mail'
"Paxman and Humphrys go head-to-head in Radio 4 showdown" (25 August 2007)
[Extract]:
"..the seven-and-a-half-minute 'Today' contest was more fascinating for its display of verbal fisticuffs – which ranged from mild ribbing to sarcasm, put-downs, interruptions and even a clash over salaries.
"The presenters are renowned as the BBC's 'rottweilers' for their aggressive interviewing styles.
Humphrys has been criticised by politicians for his frequent interruptions, while Paxman has a reputation for being dismissive and sneering at guests who prevaricate."
Ex-Beeboid Freelance Type should use a better word than "earn", four letters that imply effort for remuneration.
None of these jumped-up semi literate, sarcastic, front of house,biased snobs actually do any real work. That's done by lesser beings of the sometimes unbiased complection off stage. So let's think of another four letter word. Hmm, now I wonder….
Rod Liddle in the Times should be compulsory reading
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article6445961.ece
His best article ever.
It says all you need to know.
You wouldn't drastically reform, now the anti BBC explosion is moments away now and you will cease to be.