Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.
This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
'Best staff' ? - how much of a loss would it be if a lot of these presenters left. The vast majority have generic personalities and could easily be replaced.
What criteria are they judged on? The BBC is awash with mediocre presenters - it's not one of the more skilled jobs in our society.
How many people are going to miss the output and insight of Gary Lineker?
Real "personalities" were pumped from the BBC a long time ago
Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.
This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
'Best staff' ? - how much of a loss would it be if a lot of these presenters left. The vast majority have generic personalities and could easily be replaced.
What criteria are they judged on? The BBC is awash with mediocre presenters - it's not one of the more skilled jobs in our society.
How many people are going to miss the output and insight of Gary Lineker?
He clearly is very good at what he does though or are there other reasons you dislike him?
Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.
This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
'Best staff' ? - how much of a loss would it be if a lot of these presenters left. The vast majority have generic personalities and could easily be replaced.
What criteria are they judged on? The BBC is awash with mediocre presenters - it's not one of the more skilled jobs in our society.
How many people are going to miss the output and insight of Gary Lineker?
He clearly is very good at what he does though or are there other reasons you dislike him?
What exactly are you judging him on? Are people tuning in to MOTD to watch him or would they tune in regardless?
The vast majority of BBC shows get a captive audience because of the format and the channel they're on. How many presenters really make much of a difference?
There may be some presenters who genuinely pull in an audience but very few.
Emma Barnett .. currently hosts a morning R5 show for 3 hours 4 days a week, as well as occasional other appearances on Newsnight and the like .. next year she moves to 'Woman's Hour', a daily 1 hour R4 show .. I wonder if the reduction in hours will mean a reduction in salary ?
Huw Edwards is paid £400,000 - £500,000 p.a depending on which report one reads .. as Nick Ferrari (LBC) said (I paraphrase slightly), 'not bad money for reading a script from a teleprompter' .. other newsreaders seem to be equally overpaid, and who pays for their very smart looking suits and/or lovely dresses ? ((:>)
Emma Barnett .. currently hosts a morning R5 show for 3 hours 4 days a week, as well as occasional other appearances on Newsnight and the like .. next year she moves to 'Woman's Hour', a daily 1 hour R4 show .. I wonder if the reduction in hours will mean a reduction in salary ?
Huw Edwards is paid £400,000 - £500,000 p.a depending on which report one reads .. as Nick Ferrari (LBC) said (I paraphrase slightly), 'not bad money for reading a script from a teleprompter' .. other newsreaders seem to be equally overpaid, and who pays for their very smart looking suits and/or lovely dresses ? ((:>)
The BBC could put in a maximum salary for the numerous 'generic' presenting jobs it has and I doubt output would suffer in the slightest. I'm sure there would be plenty of takers at 150k a year.
No jobs should pay 1.4m a year. It just isn't necessary. Highlighting the BBC is pointless. CEOs and partners of failing "services" such as train companies, power companies, industries that contribute f*** all to the public good all suck up far bigger salaries than this. C list celebrities make more than this. We live in a world where Kim Kardashian has unimaginable wealth for having a big arse. People make more money than this by doing nothing at all.
It's not the market though, is it? That's entirely the problem people have with it. The licence fee shields the BBC from commercial market pressures.
There is no way on earth Zoe Ball gets at £1.4m pay rise for losing more than a million listeners in a year. Commercial radio would kick her out on her arse.
No jobs should pay 1.4m a year. It just isn't necessary. Highlighting the BBC is pointless. CEOs and partners of failing "services" such as train companies, power companies, industries that contribute f*** all to the public good all suck up far bigger salaries than this. C list celebrities make more than this. We live in a world where Kim Kardashian has unimaginable wealth for having a big arse. People make more money than this by doing nothing at all.
Agreed, especially when while there are people out there living on less than £3 a day
No jobs should pay 1.4m a year. It just isn't necessary. Highlighting the BBC is pointless. CEOs and partners of failing "services" such as train companies, power companies, industries that contribute f*** all to the public good all suck up far bigger salaries than this. C list celebrities make more than this. We live in a world where Kim Kardashian has unimaginable wealth for having a big arse. People make more money than this by doing nothing at all.
Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.
This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
'Best staff' ? - how much of a loss would it be if a lot of these presenters left. The vast majority have generic personalities and could easily be replaced.
What criteria are they judged on? The BBC is awash with mediocre presenters - it's not one of the more skilled jobs in our society.
How many people are going to miss the output and insight of Gary Lineker?
He clearly is very good at what he does though or are there other reasons you dislike him?
What exactly are you judging him on? Are people tuning in to MOTD to watch him or would they tune in regardless?
The vast majority of BBC shows get a captive audience because of the format and the channel they're on. How many presenters really make much of a difference?
There may be some presenters who genuinely pull in an audience but very few.
I sort of think that's a different point though, agree it is sort of a captive audience but in modern times there are so many other places to go to if people just want to see highlights or goals. Given MOTD is still one of the BBC's most popular shows means there must be something else to it. If people don't like his personality that's one thing but he's clearly a very good presenter and when you do see a very bad presenter it can break a show or broadcast (Ortis Deley for the athletics on Channel 4?). If you can find someone that seems natural when presenting, most people like and has a good relationship with the pundits then why not try and retain that person rather than risk them being poached by the competitors? It's the same as any industry, they would all want to retain the talent they have.
The difference with Kim Kardashian is that she gets paid extremely high amounts of money because, for whatever absurd reason, people genuinely seem interested in HER brand.
On the other hand, Gary Lineker gets paid an extortionate amount but not because people are interested in him. He just happens to be standing in the way of the viewer and the football highlights they want to see. If any other presenter was involved, it wouldn’t make a jot of difference to MOTD ratings. The value of that show is the exclusive Premier League highlights - not him.
Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.
This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
'Best staff' ? - how much of a loss would it be if a lot of these presenters left. The vast majority have generic personalities and could easily be replaced.
What criteria are they judged on? The BBC is awash with mediocre presenters - it's not one of the more skilled jobs in our society.
How many people are going to miss the output and insight of Gary Lineker?
He clearly is very good at what he does though or are there other reasons you dislike him?
The difference with Kim Kardashian is that she gets paid extremely high amounts of money because, for whatever absurd reason, people genuinely seem interested in HER brand.
On the other hand, Gary Lineker gets paid an extortionate amount but not because people are interested in him. He just happens to be standing in the way of the viewer and the football highlights they want to see. If any other presenter was involved, it wouldn’t make a jot of difference to MOTD ratings. The value of that show is the exclusive Premier League highlights - not him.
Spot on.
The Kardashian name, among others, actually puts "bums
on seats" and having their names on stuff make their partners £millions on
top of what they might have earned if their name weren't on it, due to the
silly amount of gullible follows they have.
Watching Lineker is necessary, if you wanna watch the football
highlights. Imagine how many more people would watch though, if one of the Kardashians
presented MOTD...
Emma Barnett .. currently hosts a morning R5 show for 3 hours 4 days a week, as well as occasional other appearances on Newsnight and the like .. next year she moves to 'Woman's Hour', a daily 1 hour R4 show .. I wonder if the reduction in hours will mean a reduction in salary ?
Huw Edwards is paid £400,000 - £500,000 p.a depending on which report one reads .. as Nick Ferrari (LBC) said (I paraphrase slightly), 'not bad money for reading a script from a teleprompter' .. other newsreaders seem to be equally overpaid, and who pays for their very smart looking suits and/or lovely dresses ? ((:>)
With a move to R4, I would be surprised if Emma does NOT get a pay rise. BBC Radio 4's expenditure is astronomical and roughly the same as BBC Radio 5 Live and and BBC Radio 1 combined.
The idea that they just present for x hours is also quiet funny. from the list Lauren Laverne is criminally underpaid in comparison to people on commercial radio in the same time slot
The idea that they just present for x hours is also quiet funny. from the list Lauren Laverne is criminally underpaid in comparison to people on commercial radio in the same time slot
With the exception of the big breakfast shows, eg Global, Bauer, Wireless plus a few other spots here and there radio presenting is a pretty poorly paid profession. There is no money in local radio, your average afternoon presenter is probably on around 24k.
It is pretty sad, but radio is dying a slow death.....Don't let the people at RAJAR try and tell you otherwise.
The idea that they just present for x hours is also quiet funny. from the list Lauren Laverne is criminally underpaid in comparison to people on commercial radio in the same time slot
With the exception of the big breakfast shows, eg Global, Bauer, Wireless plus a few other spots here and there radio presenting is a pretty poorly paid profession. There is no money in local radio, your average afternoon presenter is probably on around 24k.
It is pretty sad, but radio is dying a slow death.....Don't let the people at RAJAR try and tell you otherwise.
Yep, sort of know the late night weekend presenter on LBC, and he's not exactly rolling in it, but has had a decent career when there was some money in it.
The idea that they just present for x hours is also quiet funny. from the list Lauren Laverne is criminally underpaid in comparison to people on commercial radio in the same time slot
With the exception of the big breakfast shows, eg Global, Bauer, Wireless plus a few other spots here and there radio presenting is a pretty poorly paid profession. There is no money in local radio, your average afternoon presenter is probably on around 24k.
It is pretty sad, but radio is dying a slow death.....Don't let the people at RAJAR try and tell you otherwise.
Yep, sort of know the late night weekend presenter on LBC, and he's not exactly rolling in it, but has had a decent career when there was some money in it.
Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.
This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
This is completely untrue. The ex works at the BBC, as does a friend. Both are paid below market average, as are the vast majority of employees including the 'talent'. This job for life thing is a myth lost in the 90s. Go into any large corporation and there will be some 'legacy' staff for want for a better but awful phrase. The quality of programming on the BBC on both television and radio are far superior than the countless hours of shit no substance on Amazon and Netflix - I'd guarantee wastage is far bigger on those networks.
Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.
This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
This is completely untrue. The ex works at the BBC, as does a friend. Both are paid below market average, as are the vast majority of employees including the 'talent'. This job for life thing is a myth lost in the 90s. Go into any large corporation and there will be some 'legacy' staff for want for a better but awful phrase. The quality of programming on the BBC on both television and radio are far superior than the countless hours of shit no substance on Amazon and Netflix - I'd guarantee wastage is far bigger on those networks.
So you're saying that there are "legacy" staff and therefore proving my point not untrue?
Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.
This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
This is completely untrue. The ex works at the BBC, as does a friend. Both are paid below market average, as are the vast majority of employees including the 'talent'. This job for life thing is a myth lost in the 90s. Go into any large corporation and there will be some 'legacy' staff for want for a better but awful phrase. The quality of programming on the BBC on both television and radio are far superior than the countless hours of shit no substance on Amazon and Netflix - I'd guarantee wastage is far bigger on those networks.
I think most people under 30, maybe even 40 would prefer Netflix to the BBC.
The average BBC1 viewer is 61, for BBC2 it is 62.
The BBC is a dying institution filled with people who generally lack talent, but point at the "paid for" sectors full of talent to validate their inflated pay packets.
The BBC is the public sector of the broadcasting world. No profit motive and a lack of real talent.
The one good thing going for the BBC is it is perfectly hated by the loony left and the loony right.
If you disagree with this... I have bad news for you....
My particular favourite (and I have seen it plenty of times on here) is where people claim on the one hand it is massively biased against "their side" and then in the next breath claim that the opposition are trying to target the impartiality of the BBC and bring it down.
Again, this is on all sides. The BBC forces the middle ground on people who quite often would choose not to listen to it, let alone see the opposite view.
For that, in these ever more divided times, it is actually a force for good.
You don't have to pay someone 6 figures to read the news though...
Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.
This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
This is completely untrue. The ex works at the BBC, as does a friend. Both are paid below market average, as are the vast majority of employees including the 'talent'. This job for life thing is a myth lost in the 90s. Go into any large corporation and there will be some 'legacy' staff for want for a better but awful phrase. The quality of programming on the BBC on both television and radio are far superior than the countless hours of shit no substance on Amazon and Netflix - I'd guarantee wastage is far bigger on those networks.
Why do all these people work for below market rate ?
The BBC is a strange beast - a national institution that has a huge role to play but that has become too big and attempts to play in too many areas in order to justify its existence and licence fee.
I'd love to see a pared back BBC that:-
- Delivers quality news and current affairs across all media - trusted, respected and with impartial content regionally, nationally and internationally. - Creates documentaries that inform and educate in a non sensationalist style. - Covers major national and international sporting events - highlights are fine... - Develops non partisan comedy and "light" entertainment.
It could save many many hundreds of millions by stopping playing the headline act / ratings game and in so doing lowering its standards to the lowest common denominator. The licence fee could be removed and the BBc could be funded through general taxation.
I would:-
- Sell off much of its current "popular" TV to commercial interest (Eastenders would be great on a commercial channel - advertisers would pay to be associated with it and my taxes won't contribute towards the absolute pile of depressive and objectionable shite it is). - Stop paying "celebrities" millions of pounds of taxpayers money - adopt a public service pay structure and let the "talent" secure their pay packets in a commercial enterprise (then they can get the "market rate"). - Cull the proliferation of smaller channels and include the good content that exists in the core channels and stations.
My BBC would look like this:- - BBC On line. Pretty much as it is today. - BBC TV. reduce to two channels; BBC1. News, documentaries and current affairs, BBC2 Sport, comedy and entertainment (children's content up to 6pm) - BBC Radio (National) . Reduce to 4 channels; Radio 1 contemporary content, younger audience, Radio 2 less contemporary content for an older audience, BBC3 specialist content (not just classical), Radio 4 news, current affairs and documentaries. - BBC Radio (Regional). Pretty much as it is today. - BBC World Service - continue to be the UK's voice of influence and stability around the world.
Scrap everything else...
I think I have just taken us back to about 1990. Perhaps not such a bad thing...
The BBC is a strange beast - a national institution that has a huge role to play but that has become too big and attempts to play in too many areas in order to justify its existence and licence fee.
I'd love to see a pared back BBC that:-
- Delivers quality news and current affairs across all media - trusted, respected and with impartial content regionally, nationally and internationally. - Creates documentaries that inform and educate in a non sensationalist style. - Covers major national and international sporting events - highlights are fine... - Develops non partisan comedy and "light" entertainment.
It could save many many hundreds of millions by stopping playing the headline act / ratings game and in so doing lowering its standards to the lowest common denominator. The licence fee could be removed and the BBc could be funded through general taxation.
I would:-
- Sell off much of its current "popular" TV to commercial interest (Eastenders would be great on a commercial channel - advertisers would pay to be associated with it and my taxes won't contribute towards the absolute pile of depressive and objectionable shite it is). - Stop paying "celebrities" millions of pounds of taxpayers money - adopt a public service pay structure and let the "talent" secure their pay packets in a commercial enterprise (then they can get the "market rate"). - Cull the proliferation of smaller channels and include the good content that exists in the core channels and stations.
My BBC would look like this:- - BBC On line. Pretty much as it is today. - BBC TV. reduce to two channels; BBC1. News, documentaries and current affairs, BBC2 Sport, comedy and entertainment (children's content up to 6pm) - BBC Radio (National) . Reduce to 4 channels; Radio 1 contemporary content, younger audience, Radio 2 less contemporary content for an older audience, BBC3 specialist content (not just classical), Radio 4 news, current affairs and documentaries. - BBC Radio (Regional). Pretty much as it is today. - BBC World Service - continue to be the UK's voice of influence and stability around the world.
Scrap everything else...
I think I have just taken us back to about 1990. Perhaps not such a bad thing...
Interesting you’ve cut out 5 Live given we’re on a football forum. Infinitely better than Talkshite, for me it’s a great advert for why having a public service broadcaster is better than leaving everything to the commercial sector.
The BBC is a strange beast - a national institution that has a huge role to play but that has become too big and attempts to play in too many areas in order to justify its existence and licence fee.
I'd love to see a pared back BBC that:-
- Delivers quality news and current affairs across all media - trusted, respected and with impartial content regionally, nationally and internationally. - Creates documentaries that inform and educate in a non sensationalist style. - Covers major national and international sporting events - highlights are fine... - Develops non partisan comedy and "light" entertainment.
It could save many many hundreds of millions by stopping playing the headline act / ratings game and in so doing lowering its standards to the lowest common denominator. The licence fee could be removed and the BBc could be funded through general taxation.
I would:-
- Sell off much of its current "popular" TV to commercial interest (Eastenders would be great on a commercial channel - advertisers would pay to be associated with it and my taxes won't contribute towards the absolute pile of depressive and objectionable shite it is). - Stop paying "celebrities" millions of pounds of taxpayers money - adopt a public service pay structure and let the "talent" secure their pay packets in a commercial enterprise (then they can get the "market rate"). - Cull the proliferation of smaller channels and include the good content that exists in the core channels and stations.
My BBC would look like this:- - BBC On line. Pretty much as it is today. - BBC TV. reduce to two channels; BBC1. News, documentaries and current affairs, BBC2 Sport, comedy and entertainment (children's content up to 6pm) - BBC Radio (National) . Reduce to 4 channels; Radio 1 contemporary content, younger audience, Radio 2 less contemporary content for an older audience, BBC3 specialist content (not just classical), Radio 4 news, current affairs and documentaries. - BBC Radio (Regional). Pretty much as it is today. - BBC World Service - continue to be the UK's voice of influence and stability around the world.
Scrap everything else...
I think I have just taken us back to about 1990. Perhaps not such a bad thing...
Interesting you’ve cut out 5 Live given we’re on a football forum. Infinitely better than Talkshite, for me it’s a great advert for why having a public service broadcaster is better than leaving everything to the commercial sector.
5 live came into being in 1994 so misses my 1990 benchmark!
I have only listened to talksport once, a few weeks back to hear RE talk to TS. I tuned in (or logged on) about 15 minutes before the interview and was amazed that anyone can listen to that quality of content for more than 2 minutes without their brains turning to mush. I fully agree that that is why we need public service broadcasting.
Prior to 5 live, sport was covered on Radio 4. It was factual, high quality and well regarded without the need for incessant "phone ins" that seem to dominate radio broadcasting (at least I don't remember them being as ubiquitous as they are now).
I have to admit that I have a passionate dislike for them, on sport or any subject. I want to hear expert views and analysis, not the nonsense spouted by John from Surrey on why Arsene Wenger must go. I recognise the hypocrisy of saying that whilst writing on a football forum, but their is a fundamental difference between them being hosted on a national broadcast versus me choosing to come here.
Quality sport coverage could be easily accommodated on a Radio 4 as it was previously.
The idea that they just present for x hours is also quiet funny. from the list Lauren Laverne is criminally underpaid in comparison to people on commercial radio in the same time slot
With the exception of the big breakfast shows, eg Global, Bauer, Wireless plus a few other spots here and there radio presenting is a pretty poorly paid profession. There is no money in local radio, your average afternoon presenter is probably on around 24k.
It is pretty sad, but radio is dying a slow death.....Don't let the people at RAJAR try and tell you otherwise.
Yep, sort of know the late night weekend presenter on LBC, and he's not exactly rolling in it, but has had a decent career when there was some money in it.
Still think Lauren is worth more then Zoe!
You don't know Nick Abbot?!?!
I do, from when he sorted me out work experience at Virgin Radio about 25 years ago
The idea that they just present for x hours is also quiet funny. from the list Lauren Laverne is criminally underpaid in comparison to people on commercial radio in the same time slot
With the exception of the big breakfast shows, eg Global, Bauer, Wireless plus a few other spots here and there radio presenting is a pretty poorly paid profession. There is no money in local radio, your average afternoon presenter is probably on around 24k.
It is pretty sad, but radio is dying a slow death.....Don't let the people at RAJAR try and tell you otherwise.
Yep, sort of know the late night weekend presenter on LBC, and he's not exactly rolling in it, but has had a decent career when there was some money in it.
Still think Lauren is worth more then Zoe!
You don't know Nick Abbot?!?!
I do, from when he sorted me out work experience at Virgin Radio about 25 years ago
Jesus Christ. He is literally one of my heroes. If I could have a dinner table with 5 guests he would be on it every single time.
Comments
The vast majority of BBC shows get a captive audience because of the format and the channel they're on. How many presenters really make much of a difference?
There may be some presenters who genuinely pull in an audience but very few.
Huw Edwards is paid £400,000 - £500,000 p.a depending on which report one reads .. as Nick Ferrari (LBC) said (I paraphrase slightly), 'not bad money for reading a script from a teleprompter' .. other newsreaders seem to be equally overpaid, and who pays for their very smart looking suits and/or lovely dresses ? ((:>)
On the other hand, Gary Lineker gets paid an extortionate amount but not because people are interested in him. He just happens to be standing in the way of the viewer and the football highlights they want to see. If any other presenter was involved, it wouldn’t make a jot of difference to MOTD ratings. The value of that show is the exclusive Premier League highlights - not him.
The Kardashian name, among others, actually puts "bums on seats" and having their names on stuff make their partners £millions on top of what they might have earned if their name weren't on it, due to the silly amount of gullible follows they have.
Watching Lineker is necessary, if you wanna watch the football highlights. Imagine how many more people would watch though, if one of the Kardashians presented MOTD...
One day they will be free from the BBC and its tyranny!!!!
Sorry bored and fishing for a bite.
With the exception of the big breakfast shows, eg Global, Bauer, Wireless plus a few other spots here and there radio presenting is a pretty poorly paid profession. There is no money in local radio, your average afternoon presenter is probably on around 24k.
It is pretty sad, but radio is dying a slow death.....Don't let the people at RAJAR try and tell you otherwise.
Still think Lauren is worth more then Zoe!
The average BBC1 viewer is 61, for BBC2 it is 62.
The BBC is a dying institution filled with people who generally lack talent, but point at the "paid for" sectors full of talent to validate their inflated pay packets.
The BBC is the public sector of the broadcasting world. No profit motive and a lack of real talent.
If you disagree with this... I have bad news for you....
My particular favourite (and I have seen it plenty of times on here) is where people claim on the one hand it is massively biased against "their side" and then in the next breath claim that the opposition are trying to target the impartiality of the BBC and bring it down.
Again, this is on all sides. The BBC forces the middle ground on people who quite often would choose not to listen to it, let alone see the opposite view.
For that, in these ever more divided times, it is actually a force for good.
You don't have to pay someone 6 figures to read the news though...
I'd love to see a pared back BBC that:-
- Delivers quality news and current affairs across all media - trusted, respected and with impartial content regionally, nationally and internationally.
- Creates documentaries that inform and educate in a non sensationalist style.
- Covers major national and international sporting events - highlights are fine...
- Develops non partisan comedy and "light" entertainment.
It could save many many hundreds of millions by stopping playing the headline act / ratings game and in so doing lowering its standards to the lowest common denominator. The licence fee could be removed and the BBc could be funded through general taxation.
I would:-
- Sell off much of its current "popular" TV to commercial interest (Eastenders would be great on a commercial channel - advertisers would pay to be associated with it and my taxes won't contribute towards the absolute pile of depressive and objectionable shite it is).
- Stop paying "celebrities" millions of pounds of taxpayers money - adopt a public service pay structure and let the "talent" secure their pay packets in a commercial enterprise (then they can get the "market rate").
- Cull the proliferation of smaller channels and include the good content that exists in the core channels and stations.
My BBC would look like this:-
- BBC On line. Pretty much as it is today.
- BBC TV. reduce to two channels; BBC1. News, documentaries and current affairs, BBC2 Sport, comedy and entertainment (children's content up to 6pm)
- BBC Radio (National) . Reduce to 4 channels; Radio 1 contemporary content, younger audience, Radio 2 less contemporary content for an older audience, BBC3 specialist content (not just classical), Radio 4 news, current affairs and documentaries.
- BBC Radio (Regional). Pretty much as it is today.
- BBC World Service - continue to be the UK's voice of influence and stability around the world.
Scrap everything else...
I think I have just taken us back to about 1990. Perhaps not such a bad thing...
I have only listened to talksport once, a few weeks back to hear RE talk to TS. I tuned in (or logged on) about 15 minutes before the interview and was amazed that anyone can listen to that quality of content for more than 2 minutes without their brains turning to mush. I fully agree that that is why we need public service broadcasting.
Prior to 5 live, sport was covered on Radio 4. It was factual, high quality and well regarded without the need for incessant "phone ins" that seem to dominate radio broadcasting (at least I don't remember them being as ubiquitous as they are now).
I have to admit that I have a passionate dislike for them, on sport or any subject. I want to hear expert views and analysis, not the nonsense spouted by John from Surrey on why Arsene Wenger must go. I recognise the hypocrisy of saying that whilst writing on a football forum, but their is a fundamental difference between them being hosted on a national broadcast versus me choosing to come here.
Quality sport coverage could be easily accommodated on a Radio 4 as it was previously.