As picked up by George R in an Open Thread…
Newsnight’s new presenter has been offered a £200,000-a-year contract to lure her away from ITV, it has emerged. Laura Kuenssberg, a BBC veteran who is currently the business editor at ITV, is set to become Newsnight’s chief correspondent next month. It was today reported that she would be earning a salary of £200,000 to appear on the programme, whose average audience has slipped in recent years to just 600,000 viewers.
Just three quid a viewer – the girl’s an absolute bargain!
33 pence a viewer !
Yet another paid more than the Prime Minister !
My bad on the maths!
Well she’ll likely be there for 10 years, on average, so you are right.
No.
She attracts just 3 viewers for every £ she is paid.
‘…3 viewers for every £ she is paid’
Put that way, with the ‘unique’ warped financial acumen at the bBC, I expect them to give her a raise to boost the Newsnight ratings!
The BBC are doing their best to present Newsnight as completely reformed, following the Savile/McAlpine debacles, as if changing the faces within are going to change the overriding mindset. They seem also prepared to spend any amount to do it, regardless of cost effectiveness, but as we know, it’s never bothered the BBC before.
At present the Newsnight team comprise the following:
Jeremy Paxman, Kirsty Wark, Gavin Esler, Emily Maitlis, Ian Katz, Katie Razzall, Olly Lambert, and now Laura Kuenssberg. The number of women in the team now is for the BBC to prove that it’s really not sexist following criticisms to this effect, although ladies of more advanced years seem not to remain in the corporation.
Now considering the Newsnight audience has dropped from about a million to about 600,000 in the last few years, and Jeremy Paxman alone makes £800,000 a year, is the licence fee payer really getting value for money for this programme?
The BBC won’t say how much Ian Katz receives, but with newcomer Laura Kuenssberg on £200,000, it’s fair to assume the others are certainly on a six figure salary, which makes a fair chunk of cash to run this programme. Is it really worth it?
I somehow can’t believe a private company spending this kind of money for such a small audience, but the BBC is not constrained by the same appraisals a private company has to make. But it shows that the BBC regards the ability to spout their propaganda is more important than the licence fee payers who actually want to watch it.
The number of women in the team now is for the BBC to prove that it’s really not sexist following criticisms to this effect
Yes, heaven forbid they could possibly be hired due to their ability. Let’s just denigrate them and accuse their function as purely tokenistic. Of course there’s no proof behind such claims – there never is, is there?
What ability, in her case? As another Labour-supporting talking head?
A little bit of evidence wouldn’t come amiss. Like a track record as a story-breaking successful business journalist, or some relevant experience inside business.
In the absence of either I can’t see what is so unreasonable about imputing other motives
to her employers. God knows they have enough of a track record.
Let’s just denigrate them and accuse their function as purely tokenistic
Is that what you did? Must have touched a nerve. But I understand why YOU particularly might feel somewhat confused about women in a ‘tokenistic’ way.
So clearly for you by the same ‘token’ the BBC hired a Muslim to be head of religion in a dominant Christian country for his ability.
Ignore the little cunt, he’s playing devil’s advocate to make himself feel like he’s doing something with his life.
Perhaps he’d like to explain why women presenters at the Beeb upon reaching a certain age, and one would imagine with their experience would have a far greater ability are put out to pasture . Yet the same doesn’t seem to happen to men there. I’m sure our Scott wants to blame us for implying there’s not really a good reason for it and it’s not what we see to be the case.
Then again – he might just realised he’s licked (no double entendre)
Sorry Scott, you don’t get to do this just days after trying to claim that Alan was racist – again, with no supporting evidence.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. For your own sake, just stop.
1. Selina Scott: Why I believe the BBC is guilty of blatant ageism and sexism
2. A BBC obsessed with diversity and feminist pieties is gloriously hoist with its own petard
🙄
Look how Lord Hall highlighted the addition of Mishal Hussein to the Today programme. It was the fact that it was a female that was important.
I seem to remember that she ‘ticked all the box’s’
Female? Check.
An Ethnic minority? Check.
Muslim? Check.
Reads The Guardian? Check
I could go on but I’ll spare you.
And as for Scott, he should change his name to Lazarus. I mean he’s been shot to pieces so many times in these comments sections yet rises on another 4 days later to repeat the process.
And a complete babe. Check.
Notice they never hire mingers?
You forgot the dreaded PeeCee Kommissar Derbyshire as stand-in.
Could someone explain to me what actual experience of business this woman has?
Laura K’s business experience is two years as the business reporter for ITV. With professional, highly experienced journalists, the subject doesn’t really matter. Their skills apply to everything. They can learn as they go along because it’s the presentation and form that matters. She already knows how to do all that, has plenty of experience producing journalism to form. If they sent Mark Mardell to the US where he knew absolutely nothing and came in certain that racism was an overriding force in society, and let Tim Franks jump from being an Israel correspondent to his dream job in sports as some kind of compensation for slogging through a couple years as a useful Jew for the BBC, then Laura K can go from politics to business.
It’s the arcane art beyond our ken, and we mustn’t question the priest caste.
With her years of experience of life she should bring much needed gravitas !!!!!
The left have no real sympathy for or understanding of business, so will see no need to have someone with a business background in the job.
All she needs to know is how to re-word or C&P Labour press releases. It’s all BBC ‘journalists’ do these days.
Are there no Romanians with experience prepared to move to Salford on minimum wage?
The BBC playing at a recruitment war at our expense.
Maybe it is a bit old-fashioned to expect that Newsnight’s Business Editor should be on a par with a good FT journalist – which AFAIK Laura clearly isn’t. She wasn;t up to much as a political reporter either IMHO.
In the world of marketratism, at least the unique BBC variety, one wonders if there will be any performance-related aspect to her tenure and/or remuneration?
Because if the level is simply maintained or the slide continues, if she stays in place at this pay, it would seem to be another negotiation that our Luce would be proud to have forgotten she had while no one told Lords Tone and Patten.
In addition to Paxo (and isn’t that FT chap coming on board too, but not to replace Ms. Watts, whose severance deal will be interesting if not #foiexempted for the purposes of hiring and firing on unique whim of BBC senior Eds) this seems a vast amount for such poor audience numbers.
You can’t win with the BBC when it comes to value for money.
When millions watch dross like Eastenders that justifies the licence fee because they are obviously giving the public what they want.
When nobody watches like Newsnight that also justifies the fee, as no commercial broadcaster would make it.
The BBC’s have it both ways logic is like that of the eco-nutters with their ‘hot weather means global warming/cold weather means global warming’ reasoning.
The former shouldn’t be used to justify the license fee, while that latter should. The former could easily be supplied by the commercial sector, while the latter might not be. That used to be a valid definition, but was lost years ago. Now, as John Redwood recently learned straight from the horse’s
assmouth, ratings and overseas commercial revenue is how the BBC mandarins now define quality public service broadcasting, and any complaints about it are met with “You just want the BBC to make shows you like and stop making ones you don’t” derision.Come to think of it, it’s eerily similar to defenses of the indefensible we hear: “You’re angry that the BBC has reported something you don’t like, and just want them to report opinions you agree with”.
Albeeba leading on the army assistance for the Somerset Levels…..and complaining.
Asking the question what can tne army do, that charities cant?
And analysing the reasons why it’s so wet. You get the impression John Kay is praying for a monsoon.
What a bunch of treasonous wankers infest albeeba.
They managed to find folk prepared to criticise the late arrival of the help. I sincerely hope the army up sticks and fuck off back to barracks.
Knobs, wrong thread, sorry.
I remember watching Laura covering a General Election, the Tories were all wearing red roses, she didn’t understand and asked them why they were wearing Labour Colours, but it was April 23rd.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By George, If that isn’t worth £200k, to the BBC at least, what is?
Given that any senior BBC hire also seems to come with an entourage, come the day I bet she’ll now have her own poppy pinner-onner too.
I always regarded Laura as an air-head with the most irritating voice on TV. I wonder where her real talents lie?
I have no doubt that an open formal debate on “catastrophic warming” (ie one with both sides allowed to speak) would get an audience at least 10 times Newsnight’s.
Free formal debate is a necessary and perhaps sufficient condition for a free society. Since they absolutely refuse to broadcast such I assume the BBC agree.
It can’t be because they would have to pay that much to the debate moderator – that is a job that some comparatively underpaid high court judge could do far better. It can’t be that it wouldn’t be more intelligent than Newsnight or more, well as, popular as Eastenders.