We all know the hypocrisy of the BBC…its well paid stars who criticise banker’s pay, the ‘hidden’ commercial side of the BBC that uses its state subsidy to crush commercial rivals, the criticism of ‘greed’ and ‘consumerism’…..and yet here they are, not satisfied with their BBC income, grubbing around for more.….for the odd speech or ‘appearance’…..
Jeremy Bowen
BBC Middle East Editor, Author & Television Presenter
Fee Group: £6k – £10k
Bowen seems to have the same billing as….
4 Poofs & A Piano
Jonathan Ross’ Former House Band on His Popular Friday Night Chat Show
Fee Group: £6k – £10k
Humphrys tops that….just….
John Humphrys
Journalist, broadcaster and television presenter (The Today Programme)
Fee Group: £11k – £15k
A different ‘Bowen’ smashes Jeremy’s pay limit……must be galling for the professional newsman to be out paced by an interior decorator…..
Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen
One of The UK’s Most Established Interior Designers
Fee Group: £16k – £25k
A comedian gets even more…..
Graham Norton
Popular & Controversial Irish Chat Show Host
Fee Group: £25k +
And for comparison……a bike rider….
Bradley Wiggins CBE
Winner of the Tour de France (2012) and Olympic Gold Time-Trials (2012)
Fee Group: £50k +
And a computer whizzkid…
Bill Gates
Former Chairman & Chief Software Architect of Microsoft Corporation
Fee Group: £100k +
And the Left’s poster boy that never was….but who manages to rake in the money despite his political principles……
David Milliband
Labour politician and former UK Foreign Secretary
Fee Group: £16k – £25k
“Former governor of Hong Kong” Lord Patten will whore for anyone too. His fee group £25,000 plus.
http://www.nmplive.co.uk/viewTalent.aspx?Category=Keynote&SubCategory=Sustainability%2FEnvironment&Pre=ViewCat&VCat=Keynote&TalentRef=1525&Offset=16&Field=Name&Sort=
All down to supply and demand. You can either go for someone at the top or pick someone up off the street (to carry on your prostitution analogy). At the lower (cheap?) end you can employ the likes of Quentin Letts (Under £5000), Ann Widdecombe (under £10000), Edwina Currie (under £5000) or Jeffry Archer (under £10000).
Quite right.
But then they do not turn round and smear others who do the same do they?
To be honest I would be much happier with Jeffrey Archer and Ann Widdecombe than Chris Patten (and still have 5 grand change!)
‘All down to supply and demand’
A principle which, uniquely, does not appear to apply to the services provided, via compulsory funding of their employer, to give them profile enough to secure in one night for a bit of ‘analysis’ the annual wages of what actually essential services now?
And no, £6kpa (plus gotcha bonus) is too much for professional counter-critic blog troll, even off the books.
‘Jeffery Archer (under £10000)’
There does seem a certain karmic irony to the BBC’s ME Editor being viewed as on par with a fiction writer, convicted perjurer and perverter of the course of justice, true.
‘All down to supply and demand’
Funny thing for a socialist to approve of.
I agree the Four Poofs’ hypocrisy is disgusting. They have been in the vanguard of the Occupy movement and yet they force us to pay for their services. I for one will not be hiring them.
Good on yer.
Nice to know you have £6k – £10k at your disposal for the evening.
Many don’t.
You left out the grandest BBC corporate whore of the lot…Mr. Fry – willing to take a nice fee in return for selling us everything from teabags to toilet paper.
“I wish to see a dinosaur”, he bellows in his ad for Branson’s TV service.
Someone hand the man a mirror.
I would like to be warned when Mr Fry is about to appear on the screen, especially in those ads which can catch one unawares.
Well to be honest they should be allowed to get what they can ‘after hours’ (or after ours…licence fee money 🙂 ) however I wouldn’t mind betting the calls are getting fewer after all the revealing fiascos and scandals of the last few months.
I doubt that… after all, to some of us, two massively failed politicians; and PM’s; have some how gone on to such great heights as ME envoy and “fixer” of financial deals, despite having started a war in the ME and the other earns huge amounts doing god knows what after having nearly bankrupted UKPLC.
I think you need to distinguish between three groups here.
1. Those who entertain for a living, like Fry, 4 Poofs (as Jim so ably cherry picks) or Jimmy Carr.
2. BBC employees supplementing their incomes by a bit of after dinner speaking.
3. members of group 2 who then spend much of their air time bitching about people who make more money than them, like Humphrys.
Group 1 is perfectly acceptable as they are earning a living from their skills. We may not like them personally but I, for one, have no intention of trying to stop them earning – no matter how much they charge.
Group 2 is also acceptable with the proviso that they obey BBC rules or, like Civil Servants, only work for people or organisations that have no connection with their day time jobs – thus removing any likely conflict of interest.
Group three is the one that contains the candidates for Hypocrite of the Decade. There is no excuse for the likes of Humphrys or Naughtie (sp?) excoriating bankers in the morning and then troughing in the evening.
Humphreys on bankers.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/07/02/bankers-fatal-loss-trust/
Reasonable stuff.
Not sure why it should preclude him earning money for work he does outside the BBC.
So he says different thngs to different audiences eh?
There’s a word for that …
‘no intention of trying to stop them earning – no matter how much they charge’
And, as others have brought to bear… market forces.
However, in the entertainment world, the ‘brand’ that is celebrity is created on the back not just of talent, but vast investment in exposure.
Hence I still wonder how it is, in negotiations, BBC market rate talents who dole out such largesse to their market-rate chums who demand it (not talking Patten pay-offs here) do not factor in the value of the BBC offering a 24/7 multi-platform exposure vehicle to see funding of these extra-curricular activities enhanced in ways the actual quality of service alone may struggle to justify.
On wonders how many performers at a R1 festival get market rate or are persuaded of the value to downloads of being heard around the country?
I have no problem with the likes of Fry or even Brigstock making a living from the BBC. If they can then benefit from that connection then so be it.
In comparison I benefit from the connections I make from working with people who then recommend me to others. I’d love to earn a tenth of what Fry earns but that’s my problem not his. That is the way the world works.
Where I object is the BBCs use of only those ‘celebs’, like Brigstock, who conform to their own narrow political outlook. The pool of talent is so shallow that most of them struggle to amuse (even those who agree with their outlook) never mind entertain them.
That’s where the BBC bias locks into the hypocrisy about earnings. If they were not such screaming hypocrites then all I’d have to object to is the bias. As it stands it is really irritating that not only do they espouse a psychopathic and genocidal belief set but they don’t even believe in the crap they spout!
The BBC provides these people with the publicity that enables them to charge these fees. I’m willing to bet that, if the BBC and ITV and Sky worked together and told the high flyers they had to work for nothing, they would accept the deal. Many years ago, pop bands demanded a great deal more money from TOTP. I think they were getting just £300 an appearance. TOTP probably reached around 15 million record buyers. The producers said no. And every band backed down.
My father used to say the correct price for something is what the buyer is willing to pay. So if there is no fraud I really have no problem with any of the figures.
My problem is with conflict of interest and how to define it. Speaking engagements are a very fuzzy area. Ignoring my personal opinion of Jeremy Bowen, as an example, what could he talk about other than the Middle East and/or war journalism? Would anyone go to hear him about fishing or oil painting?
It could, I suppose, be possible to consider all BBC staff as civil servants and ban them from taking all outside income but that surely would lead to moonlighting at the lower levels and contracting scams at the higher.
An organisation that finds it impossible to police biased tweets is hardly able to attend each public speaking engagement and check if every word is according to guidelines. So perhaps the answer is, the higher a beeboid is in the ranks, the more they will have to be careful of what they say. If they can discipline Carol Thatcher for a remark made in private, they can discipline J.B. for a remark made at the annual dinner of the fishmonger’s association. If he is caught.
Everything the BBC does in my country is in the interest of acquiring filthy lucre. Once they gain a strong foothold, of course, then it’s “spread influence” time.
But if you’re going to do a list of top hypocritical Beeboids on the income inequality front, Katty Kay has to be in the top three at least.
Before any defender of the indefensible tries the old “she’s just promoting a BBC article, no bias there”, let me remind you that Katty has form.
What is this, the Victorian era?
One begins to sense a hint of obsession here. Which is massively hypocritical of the highest-profile Beeboid in the US. Sanctimonious Katty’s fee for speaking engagements is $25K a throw (the original link I had for this has the fee replaced with “$$$$”, indicating a range from $20K – 40$, FFS. But do a search for “Katty Kay speaking fee” and see just how many ways she gets work). That’s on top of whatever sweet paycheck she gets for being the regular guest-host on NPR’s Diane Rehm show, and her weekly (or is it bi-weekly?) appearances on
Obamessiah Broadcasting Network’sMSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and the odd panel slot on other political talking heads shows on various networks.But don’t take my word for it: do an internet search for “Katty Kay income inequality” and judge for yourself.
Every time this champion of the poor does one of these appearances, she’s directly contributing to “income inequality”. I don’t have any of these opportunities, ergo every one of which she takes advantage furthers the income disparity between us. What a hypocrite. Plus she’s married to a wealthy man.
I wouldn’t dream of curtailing her ability to earn filthy lucre for a second. But if she truly believes in what she preaches, she should voluntarily wave all appearance fees or, better still, redistribute that wealth and write me a check or give it to the charity of her choosing.