BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:17 AM

Ah yes, Iains, Breitbart, aka Trump Pravda, beacon of fake news enlightenment! 😂😂😂 Have you no shame at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 07:14 AM

Some brexiteers will not be happy until there are public show trials leading to at least humiliation and exile or ideally televised executions.... 😜

That's the BBC they'd prefer to watch...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 06:07 AM

Well that would be Robinson and Kuenssberg gone then. Anyway opposing brexit is not a sign of political bias. Its a sign of being able to analyse the consequences of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jul 17 - 05:21 AM

Time to clean out the augean stables.
I expect strict political neutrality from a publicly funded service.


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/20/bbcs-top-earners-opposed-brexit-and-controlling-migration/

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:34 PM

Good man!...a lot of water under the bridge since you left, hope you stick around, the opposition here is pitiful nowadays.... :0)

Only problem is...I think we may have ended up on the same side. :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:42 PM

Yes, ten years since i was here but my old login still worked

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:40 PM

Is that really you Shakey!!    Good to see you.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Shakey
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:31 PM

Yes bring back the test matches

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:17 PM

That's some thing we do agree upon rocker, though I mistrust the word "progressive".
I still watch and listen to Loach, but even he has lost something, there is a world weariness about him, trapped within left wing politics......unity is the new revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 12:02 PM

Ake - Ken Loach is still active and potent.. though obviously denigrated and despised as much as he is revered...

There is a new generation of socially alert & aware film makers,
but the independent movie sector is so under funded and fragmented,
we never hear about most of them...

The BBC in it's golden age of social realism drama was a great unifying platform for progressive talent with something to say
and worth listening to...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 11:41 AM

Well said Big Al......I was always a WP fan.

The problem is, the writers had something real to say and there was always a solution....a vision for the future.

Now everyone really knows that were fooked, but no one will admit it, even to themselves.

Where are all the writers? Where are the David Mercers, the Alan Bleasdales, Jim Allen, Simon Gray?

Is it that we simply don't believe the vision any longer.......or is it that we don't want to believe it.?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:28 AM

sod my piss poor proof reading...

but it merits repetition...

Public Libraries

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:24 AM

..and research for that essay was reading books from a IPPublic Library.. no internet for mass access back then...

RIP Public Libraries under Tory domination.. next the BBC...???

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 10:10 AM

hah.... just remembered...

In 1980 or 81 I wrote an essay for the very competitive application procedure
for what at that time was the prestigious Coventry Poly Communications degree.
The essay subject was concerning the values and problems of public service TV broadcasting.

That was at a time when we only had the BBC and ITV, and home video recorders were still a novelty status symbol...


btw.. how did I get on...???

Weeks prior to the interview, I was hitching down from Bradford, and decided to drop off and spend an afternoon in Coventry City Centre
to have an informal look at the Poly.

I found the area so overwhelmingly depressing I gave up on it and went to Bristol Poly instead..

.. where I met the mrs...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:38 AM

Delicately put, pfr...😂

The loss of sport has been tragic, but were the Beeb still paying for it the licence fee would be a lot higher and lots of footie-haters would go ballistic. Capitalism has dictated that sport is very big money. As I said, I pay almost as much as the licence fee to watch thirty or forty matches a year on my iPhone. I'm given that choice, take it or leave it. Can't blame the Beeb really. You can't have half of a bloated licence fee going on sport. Sky and BT will extract whatever football fans are prepared to pay, and in turn the big clubs get silly money... But enough of us are prepared to cough up, and that's the world we live in, and those two companies are selling a very targeted product. The Beeb has to cover everything and no-one is ever going to be completely happy. But long live the Beeb!

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:38 AM

I'd say I have quite wide-ranging and catholic tastes, and explore many of the commercial channels as well as BBC ones. I'm currently enthralled by RuPaul and the Drag Races. Amazing stuff. And I'm always dipping into the Music Channel. (I like pop music, especially and R n' B.) I quite enjoy those Police ones too (Road Wars etc) and TBN's American preachers. I like Dave because Mock The Week is repeated ad infinitum. And I was delighted with Tattoo Fixers on E4.

I can't abide Love Island or Big Brother, or BGT. And I don't watch any of the soaps on any channel.

If the Beeb folded, I'd miss Lucy Worsley, Ruth Goodman, Brian Cox, David Attenborough, Mary Beard, Monty Don, Tony Robinson and Penelope Keith, to name but a few.

I suppose each and every one of them earns a great deal...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:34 AM

Al - I hadn't read your post as we were writing at the same time..


Agreed.. the BBC is far from perfect.. it is always a work in progress, and colossal mistakes are made..

Perhaps usually as a result from tory appointed managers, or trying to head off and appease tory criticism and attacks...

..and the oxbridge top heavy internal culture really does still need to be addressed...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:27 AM

Don't these tory ideologue twats in govt and media think-tanks understand...

This is the 21st century and no one in their right minds watches adverts at all.. ever...

We have PVRs, or watch download/streaming catch-up, so can fast forward through the effin annoying ads..

And if we do watch any commercial TV in real time..
the ad breaks are for putting the kettle on, getting another bottle out the fridge, texting, or going for a pee...

We pay annual BBC TV license, monthly Sky Subscription, and annual Amazon Prime Membership..
We might even pay for the occasional months of Netflix...
That is our intelligent educated consumer choice.

The same applies for millions of other UK households, selecting various combinations of TV entertainment packages...

That is real genuine consumer / viewer diversity and freedom of choice..

It already exists, the BBC co-exists well enough in this media provision panoply..

Any right wing anti BBC campaigners can just shut up and eff off...!!! 😣

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 09:20 AM

if they didn't pay these celebrities so much - they could afford to make better programmes.
even a deeply committed lover of BBC would have to admit - theres a fair amount of old shit on the beeb. theres too much reliance on the oxbridge establishment - too much trust put in their wisdom and good taste.

its lost a lot of ground in the last few years. i think the start of it when they lost the test match - which used to unify England and indeed the Commonwealth.

there are some things our society needs to draw it together - the sport was part of that. i think in a similar war way the playwrights who wrote THe WEdnesday PLay did the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:54 AM

Very subjective I know, but in my experience most of the real garbage is put out by commercial channels. There are dozens of commercial channels on Freeview and the output of most is dismal. Give it a whirl on Friday or Saturday night and you'll see what I mean. OK, scrap the less-than-50p-a-day licence fee and force the Beeb to compete. You'll still be paying that money out by dint of the price increases on the stuff you'll see advertised. And the Beeb will have to dumb down to the level of the rest in order to get the ratings. Not least, adverts every ten minutes. Oh, and Radio 3 and the Proms and the BBC orchestras will probably vanish. They simply can't get the ratings. Maybe you don't care if you are a pop addict, a Chris Evans aficionado. Wow, you right-wing anti-BBC ideologues have some really great ideas for improving all our lives...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 08:36 AM

Whether anyone needs £2m a year is of course doubtful. However if they can earn it why shouldn't they be paid it?

For example, consider a pop star who can fill a football stadium. Say 50,000 seats at £50 a ticket means ticket sales of £2.5m, for just one event. OK that's not all profit, there are costs to be taken off. However those 50,000 people have all been willing to pay to see that person perform. Why should that person not receive a significant proportion of the profit generated from the event, and in what sense are they not "worth it" if they are sole reason those tickets were sold?

For TV presenters the link with the money is less direct, but they are paid these sums because they attract a large audience, which for commercial broadcasters translates directly into income. These presenters are able to demand a large share of this income because, despite appearances, there are not many who could do their job and they cannot easily be replaced. The BBC doesn't rely on audience size for its income, but if we want the BBC to make high-quality programmes it has to be able to attract and retain the best people, which means paying them what they could expect to get elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:31 AM

I thoroughly enjoy many of the Beeb's dramas, documentaries, science, nature and wildlife programmes and Watchdog-type shows. And I used to trust implicitly their News reports. (I'm not so sure about the latter nowadays). I would certainly miss the BBC channels if it folded.

I still think of that poor young bin lad. I expect he can't even afford a TV licence. Maybe his mum pays it if he lives at home.

Two million quid eh?! How much blooming money does anyone need per year??

I see today that some of the 'underpaid' women TV presenters are getting stroppy and are going to sue the Beeb. I suppose equality of pay is important.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:30 AM

I should say I agree, as others have said, that viewing figures are not the main part of the story. In fact good viewing figures for the BBC have often been used to argue it should not be making that programme (because people watch that instead of adverts and how can that be good for business? I exaggerate a little, but not much).

It is hard to see any commercial company funding the "Life on Earth" standard of programme becauae they are phenomenonally expensive: they often require a cameraman to sit in a remote location for a month or two on the hope of filming a few seconds of some animal. And they may not see anything at all. So few commercial companies make any animal wildlife programmes and the few that do stock to thongs that are easy to film, as far as I can tell.

And that sort argument applies to lots of other programmes.

So I see a well funded public broadcaster as essential if you want quality programmes. It does not guarantee such programmes, but not having one goes a long way to guarenteeing dross. Whether is is fundwd through a licwnce fee or taxation is a second-order question: both have there advantages and disadvantages. But very few people calling for the end of a licence fee seem to be demanding supporting it via taxation.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 07:08 AM

Before calling for the end of the BBC licence fee it is worth checking it against the competition and a good way of doing this is to check out The Broadcasters' Audience Research Board viewing figures. This leaves out Netflix and similar, but is still a good summary.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 06:36 AM

The licence fee is imposition and should be cancelled. Let the BBC rise or fall entirely on it's commercial merit. We will then see if some of the vast salaries can be justified. Hopefully the entire brainwashing edifice would collapse and that would be a little less garbage being transmitted.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: DaveRo
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 05:21 AM

Ratings are not unimportant to the BBC. The argument that popular shows with big-name stars can and should be left to commercial stations, apart from being patronising - "such people can put up with adverts" - undermines the justification for the licence fee. Commercial broadcasters will say that the licence fee should not be used to pay for popular programmes that they can make 'free'. It's a beguiling argument but they know that it would be the beginning of the end for the BBC. The BBC must make programmes for everyone if everyone must pay the licence fee.

Personally I think the licence fee is an anachonism, and is hard to justify. I doubt whether it'll last more than another 10 years. Whether the BBC itself would survive, and in what form, who knows.

I noticed at the top of this thread that the emergence of evidence that women were being paid far less than men, for example newsreaders who sit side-by-side, was an attempt to 'deflect' the public's concerns, or 'cloud' the issue. This is presumably the Tory press's attempt to keep their readers on the government's songsheet rather than discuss a real issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:35 AM

Most valued for by whom? How is that measured? By numbers listening/watching?

No. Absolutely not.
Commercial stations have to go for the highest numbers.
BBC can do things that they can not.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Jul 17 - 03:29 AM

The only BBC personality I'm familiar with is bill\sables, and he must have been worth every tuppence they paid him. What's bill been up to lately? He was a wonderful host when I was in England. I was hoping he'd come here to visit a few years ago, but he had to cancel that trip and I haven't heard much from him since. I got LOTS of observations from him about BBC when I stayed with him.

I know lots of US people who are addicted to BBC dramas, including my stepson. I haven't taken the time to get involved, but I buy DVDs of every BBC Earth show that comes available. I just can't get enough of their nature programs.

I do listen to a lot of BBC Radio news on our local public radio station, but I haven't come to know the different personalities on the radio programs.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 02:02 PM

"you pay for all that advertising that pays Ant and Dec. But you don't notice it because, well, you don't have to hand over money directly for them, do you?"

errrmmmm.... one of 'em is in rehab at the moment...

How would we know if he'd got so bad he was wearing a hoody and mugging old ladies...??? 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:53 PM

Most valued for by whom? How is that measured? By numbers listening/watching? By that reckoning Radio 3 should be scrapped immediately and the Proms abandoned, and Chris Evans should get a lot more airtime. Radio 3 is valued by far fewer people than any other aspect of the BBC output, yet it is, to my mind, something of a cultural oasis in a desert largely consisting of cultural dross. Classic FM, to which I frequently tune, does very nicely thank you. It does it by playing only undemanding music which is often just chunks lifted out of larger works, and the output is peppered with ads. They play the same pieces so often that it's possible to get sick to death of what used to be some of your favourite pieces of music. I don't knock it though. It has its place. As I said, it's healthy that the Beeb is held to account. But there's an awful lot of opportunistic, hypocritical Beeb-knocking going on at the moment, including in this thread. Which is the whole idea. The Tories hate the BBC and want to have themselves as many opportunities as possible to brief against it. As I said, taxpayers/licence fee payers/consumers pay for everything. The licence fee is just one way of paying for stuff. There's plenty going on out there in this big capitalistic world of ours that could usefully undergo a lot more scrutiny as to value for money. Thirty million for Ant and Dec, anyone? ITV thinks so, and you pay for all that advertising that pays Ant and Dec. But you don't notice it because, well, you don't have to hand over money directly for them, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:46 PM

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:42 PM

The BBC isn't exactly operating in a commercial arena since it is heavily supported by TV license fees . It's nice if they can supplement this by sales of programmes and recordings , but they always have that guaranteed income denied to those truly operating in the commercial arena . I can't really believe that they cannot get quality presenters and make good programmes without paying these excessive salaries

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:00 PM

We all think these people are over-paid.
It is a market, but BBC should not spend public money to support it.

If they refused to pay such fees, the market would at least fall a bit.

Would we care if shows that rely on big names were mainly found on independent stations?
They are not the shows BBC is most valued for.

Sales people have an advertising budget, and it makes no difference to prices how they spend it.
It would make a difference to the licence fee if BBC paid less.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:27 PM

Sen - as with most folks, I was aghast at the per movie fees commanded by hollywood movie stars..

I was a little more understanding when I read an article breaking down how each could be regarded as an industrial business,
employing a retinue of employees, and creative production companies out of their movie salaries..
even so, it's still an astonishing amount of £££$$$...

Now don't get me moaning on about football player's wages and transfer fees..... 😖

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:18 PM

I don't wish to criticise TV and Radio programmes particularly.
Obviously, what is fascinating entertainment for some may be anathema for others. And I can see that pleasing the majority and boosting ratings is part of the task for the Beeb. I merely think as a general comment that nobody, whatever their talent or cash-generating ability, is worth a couple of million pounds a year.

One can only take some comfort in the fact that their Tax bills must be gigantic. "Bloody good an' orl!" as my lovely Norfolk neighbour would say.

My husband is taxed a small amount, as he earns just over the Personal Allowance. The young bin lad wouldn't be paying any on his deplorable pittance.
We always give him and his team as big a Christmas Box as we can manage, and some good ale, and I hand out iced cans of Coke when it's boiling hot.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:02 PM

.. on the other hand..

Radio 4 is an excellent stimulating thought provoking radio station..

.. apart from a lot of the smug shite 'comedy' shows and dreadful middle class wanky drama productions... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:48 AM

BBC Radio 4 is a disgrace.....dreadful political bias Humphries gets £650,000 per annum and cant even get the bloody time right, he says "end now its ten minutes to eight" by the time my feet hit the floor(two seconds flat)I realise he's an hour ahead....again.
The social content in the afternoon is beyond belief, god knows what our grand kids are going to turn out like, weird social experiments are promoted and traditional values mocked

Sen is dead on the button, these wage rates are obscene, when capitalism is finally jettisoned, people will all have to contribute in a meaningful way and incomes should be capped. No benefits for people who are able to work....and no scamming the system for workers or bosses......I have always thought that financial aspiration was the root of all our problems, we should work to contribute to society.
The media work to divide society

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:37 AM

my favorite BBC news reader is Clive Myrie.
Last night he was tasked with presenting this story.
He was professional and solid as ever, no hint on his face how he regarded this news, no jokey quips or comments either.

As far as I can tell Clive is not on this list.......

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:10 AM

I think we may be talking about worth to the BBC, not to society.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:43 AM

Yes.. but instead of wealth we have the satisfaction of following and fulfilling a vocation..


hah.. remember when school careers officers used to fill our heads with that bollocks before recommending working in the civil service and public sector...???

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:40 AM

So one's worth to society is gauged by how much money one can 'generate'?

I see...

That must be why my poor tired husband and that nice sweating bin-lorry lad get a pittance for their efforts. They don't 'generate' money.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:53 AM

If a worker can generate a large amount of income for their employer from their efforts, why shouldn't they receive a fair share of that? Is it greedy to want a fair share of what they create, rather than have others take it? This money doesn't come out of nowhere, it is there because millions of people are willing to pay money to be entertained or informed by them.

For example, if Adele can fill 90000 seats at Wembley stadium at up to £100 per ticket why shouldn't she receive a substantial chunk of that? Or should she accept MU rates and see the bulk of the money go to others?

For TV presenters it is a little more difficult to apportion value, but commercial operators will know the size of the audiences they attract and the value of advertising and subscription income that can be attributed to them. The operators are businesses and wouldn't pay these sums if they didn't think it was profitable for them to do so. The BBC isn't a business in the same sense but it has to compete for the same people.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:04 AM

That was a response to Senoufou.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:03 AM

But that's capitalism for you. Today's headline is a handful of Beeb personalities. They're the tip of the iceberg. It happens in football, tennis, ITV, banking and all big corporations. I think it's healthy that the Beeb has to account for itself. It isn't quite so healthy to see Daily Mailism afflicting the discussion. By the way, Paul Dacre, the Mail's editor, gets £1.5 million a year. Adrian Chiles left the Beeb because he got a far more lucrative package from ITV, £4 million versus his £200,000 at the BBC. Guess who pays for that. You do. Ant and Dec, for chrissake, get £30 million over three years at ITV. I hate them but I pay just as much for them through the stuff I buy as you do.    And so on. It ain't right but it's the world we live in, and the world is a lot bigger than just the BBC.

What seems far more relevant to me is the apparent gender pay gap that's been exposed. I think the BBC has a lot of questions to answer there, but as ever we have ensure that, in terms of equivalent work done by two people being compared, we're actually comparing like for like.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:58 AM

The BBC is operating in a commercial market and has to pay rates which compete with what they could earn elsewhere. The commercial operators are willing to pay very high rates to attract top talent because even at these rates they will attract more income than they cost to hire. This is no different from top sports stars or top musicians. At one level they seem ridiculously overpaid, but looked at another way all they are doing is demanding a fair proportion of the vast income they generate for their employer.

If we want a public-service broadcaster it has to be able to fish in the same pond for talent as the commercial ones. That means paying what the market demands. Whilst the BBC is funded largely by public money via the licence fee, this does come only from that proportion of the population which owns a TV so while the licence fee is a tax of sorts it is at least levied on the people who are most likely to benefit from it. And as Steve says, it is incredible value for money.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:36 AM

It costs everyone in UK £147 a year for the TV licence.
The most recent figures available (2015-6) indicate there are 25 million licence payers. Some pay less (over 75yrs, the blind etc) This totals about three-and-a-half billion pounds every year.

I understand that most of these greedy presenters live in central London, and accommodation etc there is extremely expensive.But as banjoman says, poor people have to live there too.

I have never understood why any human being of either sex needs massive amounts of money to live on. It's all relative anyway. How much food can one person consume? How many pairs of shoes can one wear at a time? How many cars are needed to get from A to B? Once one is adequately provided for, anything above that is greed and extravagance.

I have a personal axe to grind, as I have seen terrible things due to abject poverty in W Africa. A tiny amount of these presenters' massive salaries would literally save lives there.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:32 AM

Joe Offer adds a layer of proportion to this. It is a very small minority of top dogs getting these huge paypackets. The BBC can't advertise so it makes money by making excellent programmes, especially dramas, which it can sell. The licence fee makes up the rest. It is incredibly good value for money in my opinion. I'm a bit of a football fan and I pay five quid a month for Sky Sports mobile and another five quid a month for BT Sport mobile. Mrs Steve buys the subs for me as permanent birthday and Christmas presents. That's £120 per annum to watch maybe thirty or forty football matches. That isn't much less than the licence fee, which we both benefit from, unlike the sports subs. Like Dave above, I'm one of the tiny minority of licence fee payers who cherish Radio 3, which I have on for far more hours in the day than the telly, with which I have a very limited transaction. As I read yesterday, Chris Evans presented Top Gear, a huge money-spinner for the Beeb. Claudia Winkleman presents Strictly Come Dancing, a format exported around the world which earns the Beeb a fortune. Etcetera. I can't justify those huge salaries but the BBC is forced to operate in a capitalistic world. In every other big corporation the top people are paid big money, otherwise they won't work for you.   It happens in multinationals and it happens, egregiously, in banking. You pay big money to get the top talent. It doesn't matter whether you or I regard Chris Evans as having any talent. That's the way it works for the BBC as a whole. It happens in commercial television too. You can whinge all you like about Chris Evans (I had to ask who he was yesterday, by the way) being paid a ton from the licence fee. But we all pay lot more for all our stuff because it's advertised on commercial telly. We taxpayers/licence fee payers/consumers pay for everything. The licence fee is just a different way of paying for stuff, that's all. Long live the Beeb. They're putting on Fidelio tomorrow evening which must cost a bomb. I suppose that if you object to Chris Evans you should object to that as well as I expect the numbers listening to Fidelio will struggle to reach six figures.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 07:13 AM

You have to remember just how partial this picture is. The BBC buys a lot of shows from production companies, and since public money is paying for that, logic suggests the fees paid to those companies' stars should also be revealed. Just because there is an intermediary does not stop it being public money that is being spent.



But as DaveRo suggests, that does not fit with the agenda of those who want to get rid of the BBC. They do not want the story to be diluted by it turning out these private companies are also paying their stars significant fees. I have no idea what the fees are, but I would hazard that "Quite Interesting Limited" pays substantial fees to its hosts. And it would be equally revealing whether Sandi Toksvig is being paid the same as Stephen Fry was.

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: banjoman
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 06:43 AM

Could not put it any better than senofou. This society has all its priorities mixed up. Look at the speech made by the new leader of Kensington council last night. There is no way she can understand the plight of those people from Grenfell , yet I bet a lot of those on the BBC list live in that area

Subject: RE: BS: Radio and TV presenter's wages.
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 06:40 AM

They're not worth it, and it's worth listening to Jeremy Vine yesterday when the Welsh miner phoned in. I stopped listening ages ago because of Vine's tory/establishment bias, whatever integrity he had went when he refused to answer that question.

These people live in a bubble inside the M25. They, slebs and stars, our politicans, the 1%, the rest of the media, our 'captains of industry' all are removed from the real world. Outside of London they live in their own little bubbles.

All we have to remember is they do not give a shit about any of us, we need to look after ourselves.