Salary changes of BBC presenters and the TV licence

[Bouleversee]

Has this been discussed and if so where or is it off topic on TLF?

[Gengulphus]

Has this been discussed and if so where or is it off topic on TLF?

I haven't seen it discussed, and a site-wide search for "BBC salary" only produces a few results - headed by your post, and none of them actually about that subject. So it probably hasn't been discussed, at least not in it's recent incarnation (the site-wide search has a massive 'blind spot' between February 2017 and September 2019).

I don't see any reason why it should be completely off-topic on TLF, as long as people refrain from making personal comments about the presenters. However, the only board on which I'd be reasonably confident the subject was on-topic is Polite Discussions.

Gengulphus

[Stonge]

The high salaries of BBC presenters are not necessary.

[kiloran]

The high salaries of BBC presenters are not necessary.

I could do their job for 1% of their salary, but the viewers would not like the end result. It's a free market, people generally get paid what they can get

--kiloran

[Gerry557]

I note some have had their pay reduced and there is a gender equality pay thing going on. Several ladies have had theirs increased whilst some gents have had theirs decreased to equalise things.

I also note even less people are renewing their TV licence. Down 300k and £40m less income. There seems to be a move to Netfix and Prime over paying for the licence.

So is the BBC poor value or annoying its customers or both.

Personally I dont like it much now, upset with how they have dealt with the pensioners so its likely that 300k will be plus one. Too many over paid staff, too woke, so much bias and becoming the news rather than reporting it. Cant remember the last good BBC program but as I dont watch it anymore maybe I have missed something.

[scrumpyjack]

The high salaries of BBC presenters are not necessary.

I could do their job for 1% of their salary, but the viewers would not like the end result. It's a free market, people generally get paid what they can get

--kiloran

Unfortunately it is not a free market. I am forced to pay the licence fee if I watch any live channel on any device, so even if I watch no BBC channels, but do watch Sky News live, legally I have to pay the BBC. That is not a free market.

At least I can choose whether to pay for Sky, or what parts of their service I want, but I can't do that with the BBC

[Watis]

Watching the BBC News at 1:00pm today, they brought on a chap who was introduced as 'Head of Statistics'!

Who knew there was anyone at the BBC with this title? How much does he earn?

And, his title suggests that he is in charge of a whole department of statisticians! What do they do all day?

Just curious.

Watis

[swill453]

And, his title suggests that he is in charge of a whole department of statisticians! What do they do all day?

I don't think the titles mean very much. Laura Kuenssberg is Chief Political Editor, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a team of political reporters whose output she edits. She's just got a bit further up the tree.

Scott.

[JohnB]

Actually the stats people are one of the best bits of the Beeb, as they point out bullshit. Listen to More or Less about Testing.

But if you don't want sport or tv news, a Britbox subscription seem more attractive than the licence fee, as the best bit of the BBC is now its back catalogue.

[Bouleversee]

When I read in The Times yesterday that Zoe Ball had had her salary for presenting the Radio 2 breakfast show increased from £370,000 to £1,36m, I thought the BBC must have gone mad or I must be missing something special so I accessed it on BBC Sounds and forced myself to listen till the ghastly opening music had at last finished and then to some inane chat which was barely audible. Definitely not for me, I thought, and switched off. I was surprised then to read that Tim Davie (the new Director-General) had defended her pay rise, saying that she was a "great listen" (though the programme has lost a million listeners since she replaced Chris Evans last year) and that commercial radio stations paid "multiples" of her salary. Let them, I thought and I wonder if that will continue when advertising revenue dries up but I feel sure there will always be queues of people willing to receive a lot less for doing something of such little value.

I can just about accept Kirsty Wark's pay being upped to £215k, Emma Barnett's to £260k and Fiona Bruce's to £450k because they are intelligent, competent, challenging and entertaining, less so Lauren Laverne's £395k for presenting Desert Island Discs which is less demanding, but to to pay such an obscene amount for such low-key and undemanding work as R2's breakfast show (which seems to be aimed at morons), particularly at a time when so many people are suffering from jobs and large losses of income. having to queue up at food banks or are working for peanuts in horrendous conditions trying to save lives in the NHS demonstrates such injustice and insensitivity that I have little confidence in the new regime and not much hope of the BBC's long term survival.

I was just about to send off the form to set up direct debits for the TV licence which I shall now have to pay for, though I rarely have time now to watch the few TV programmes I enjoy, but this has made me wonder whether I really need a licence from the BBC at all and whether it really needs my money.

P.S. Having now been alerted to posts which had been made while I was typing mine (with interruptions) I was surprised to read Scrumpyjack's comment about having to pay the BBC TV licence even if you only watch Sky. How can that be legal? I don't even have Sky but was thinking I might give up BBC but watch ITV or another independent channel on the rare occasions I have time to watch anything and there is anything to watch that is not a waste of time. I seem to remember reading that people have been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence so I need to get the facts. Better not tear up my licence form just yet.

[supremetwo]

When I read in The Times yesterday that Zoe Ball had had her salary for presenting the Radio 2 breakfast show increased from £370,000 to £1,36m, I thought the BBC must have gone mad or I must be missing something special so I accessed it on BBC Sounds and forced myself to listen till the ghastly opening music had at last finished and then to some inane chat which was barely audible. Definitely not for me, I thought, and switched off. I was surprised then to read that Tim Davie (the new Director-General) had defended her pay rise, saying that she was a "great listen" (though the programme has lost a million listeners since she replaced Chris Evans last year) and that commercial radio stations paid "multiples" of her salary. Let them, I thought and I wonder if that will continue when advertising revenue dries up but I feel sure there will always be queues of people willing to receive a lot less for doing something of such little value.

I can just about accept Kirsty Wark's pay being upped to £215k, Emma Barnett's to £260k and Fiona Bruce's to £450k because they are intelligent, competent, challenging and entertaining, less so Lauren Laverne's £395k for presenting Desert Island Discs which is less demanding, but to to pay such an obscene amount for such low-key and undemanding work as R2's breakfast show (which seems to be aimed at morons), particularly at a time when so many people are suffering from jobs and large losses of income. having to queue up at food banks or are working for peanuts in horrendous conditions trying to save lives in the NHS demonstrates such injustice and insensitivity that I have little confidence in the new regime and not much hope of the BBC's long term survival.

I was just about to send off the form to set up direct debits for the TV licence which I shall now have to pay for, though I rarely have time now to watch the few TV programmes I enjoy, but this has made me wonder whether I really need a licence from the BBC at all and whether it really needs my money.

P.S. Having now been alerted to posts which had been made while I was typing mine (with interruptions) I was surprised to read Scrumpyjack's comment about having to pay the BBC TV licence even if you only watch Sky. How can that be legal? I don't even have Sky but was thinking I might give up BBC but watch ITV or another independent channel on the rare occasions I have time to watch anything and there is anything to watch that is not a waste of time. I seem to remember reading that people have been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence so I need to get the facts. Better not tear up my licence form just yet.

Just use catch-up.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broad ... v-licence/

You only need a TV licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast or use iPlayer – if you only use other catch-up sites, you don't need one.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... dvertising.

[SalvorHardin]

I don't mind watching the BBC, but some of the salaries, particularly the newsreaders and the sports show presenters, are absolutely eye popping.

Alan Hansen was apparently on 400k a year for a bit of football chat-chat with his mates on a Sunday morning highlights show. I mean come on.....that's insane.

Hansen and his mates were awful as pundits. I renember him and several others at a World Cup group match revelling in the fact that they knew nothing about the two teams.

Pundits in other sports who were as bad as them, and the vast majority of today's football pundits, would never be invited back. Compare the BBC's football pundits with their Six Nations equivalents, who are on a lot less. It's like putting a league two side against Barcelona when Messi is having a great day.

Granted the bar for football punditry is set very low; that's why Gary Neville (on Sky) gets such praise. He stands out amongst a very mediocre crowd.

For less than the BBC pays Gary Lineker, Sky get several games a week of decent punditry and co-commentary out of Mr. Neville (who clearly does a lot of research).

In contrast the BBC gets Match of the Day; punditry with the vocabulary of a seven year old telling us the bleeding obvious.

[Bouleversee]

Supreme 2 said:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broad ... v-licence/

You only need a TV licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast or use iPlayer – if you only use other catch-up sites, you don't need one.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... dvertising

I almost never switch on my proper TV but watch the odd thing via iPlayer or ITV hub on my tablet so will have to look into other catch-ups. However, when I tried to install the app for Times Radio the other day (I am sick of the rude interruptions on the Today prog.) I found that my tablet won't accept the relevant app. and can no longer be updated though I haven't had it for all that long so if the same applies re apps. for any other means of catchup, I shall have to buy a new tablet.

[Stonge]

The BBC, a disgusting bunch of back scratchers.

[JohnB]

The big salaries do seem to go to DJs, news, current affairs, sports people, and game show hosts, none of which I watch. The actors for the dramas I do watch probably get paid well, but per production, not salary. I can't see my beloved BBC4 documentary talent getting much.

[MDW1954]

Moderator Message:
Folks, what is on-topic for this board is this:

Pull up a chair, have a biscuit - discuss the site and general questions about the LemonFool

So discussions about the BBC and the salaries of its presenters aren't on-topic.

You're welcome to take it to PD, but not to post here. --MDW1954