PDA

View Full Version : BBC "top" presenters....worth their salary..or not?


Krystal n chips
2nd Jun 2008, 17:46
Love this report..totally unbiased :hmm: ( same applies to the vast majority of reports of course....they are hardly likely to be critical to the hand that pays them after all ).....however..I draw your attention to the comments about "must walk away from those that are too expensive".....to which I would politetly add....as a licence payer....talentless to boot :E

Cost savings suggestions therefore...

Ross J
Wright S ( plus the rest of the "team" on the "show" )
Evans C
Kennedy S
Long J
Forsyth B
Norton G

That should save a few m....and offer the chance to new talent. :ok::E

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7430621.stm

goudie
2nd Jun 2008, 18:01
Krystal, agree with your list apart from Graham Norton. He makes Mrs G laugh and that's good enough for me.
As for the others, I mean what on earth is the attraction in watching and listening to Ross? The others are well past their 'sell by date'.

corsair
2nd Jun 2008, 18:37
I don't know whether they are worth it or not. But do they attract viewers or listeners? That's the measure. If the BBC doesn't pay them properly they will surely be offered more by others. Any new talent will learn their trade in the Beeb and move on as soon as ITV offers more money. Not exactly a good use of licence payers money either.

Considering everything the BBC does. Does it overall offer value for money? It's not just TV after all.

Beatriz Fontana
2nd Jun 2008, 19:17
Richard Hammond - worth every penny.

Evans, C. Utter :mad:

G-CPTN
2nd Jun 2008, 19:22
Under the Freedom of Information, aren't we entitled to know how (and to whom) our monies are being paid?
I think we should be told.

Beatriz Fontana
2nd Jun 2008, 19:28
Absolutely right, G-CPTN. The BBC is bound by the FOI Act. Crack on! (They have to respond initially withing 21 days of receipt, but it could take months for a full response).

Whirlygig
2nd Jun 2008, 19:47
Unfortunately detailed salary information is classified as Personal Data and can't be disclosed - all they can do is publish the number of employees within salary bands. If they disclose any more, then it should be with the employee's consent.

Anyway Bea, I though your squeeze was John Hammond and that I could have Richard!!! :}

Cheers

Whirls

frostbite
2nd Jun 2008, 19:53
Agree with your list, KnC, except you somehow omitted Anne Robinson!

I'm sure that was an oversight.

Beatriz Fontana
2nd Jun 2008, 20:04
Unfortunately detailed salary information is classified as Personal Data and can't be disclosed - all they can do is publish the number of employees within salary bands. If they disclose any more, then it should be with the employee's consent.And that of their agent's! There's also a public interest test that the BBC Trust advise upon. So for the very top earners, the Trust is likely to advise release.

Anyway Bea, I though your squeeze was John Hammond and that I could have Richard!!!Definitely Richard. He was lurrrrvly with long hair! :O

(I do believe that the weather forecasters on the Beeb are civil servants of the Met Office/Ministry of Defence, not BBC employees...)

selfloadingcargo
2nd Jun 2008, 20:28
To be added to the list:

Davis, Evan....the latest recruit to the Today prog on R4 needs firing forthwith. Verbose; murderer of good english; unable to resist the chance to demonstrate how clever (he thinks) he is; convoluted questions that make you (and the interviewee) forget what he asked; the attack venom of a dead sheep and the all the personality of a pencil.

I mean, he almost makes you grateful for Humphrys - so how desperate is that?

Life's a Beech
2nd Jun 2008, 20:29
BBC don't understand supply and demand. There is a great supply of people willing to be TV presenters. The demand is tiny. Although most of the people willing will be crap at the job a selection process will find many good enough. Therefore the pay should be rather poor. Why on earth are we paying so much to fools?

Brewster Buffalo
2nd Jun 2008, 20:47
Interestingly enough it was reported in the press that the BBC's Adrian Chiles (One Show, Match of the Day, You're been fired etc) was the subject of an alleged offer of 6.0m to front ITV's football coverage 2008-9 season.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581555/Adrian-Chiles-in-talks-over-ITV-sport-move.html

You see why the BBC feels the need to pay this level of salary to retain people...whether you like them or not.

C130 Techie
2nd Jun 2008, 20:56
The collective efforts of numpties like Chris Evans, Sarah Kennedy, Jonathan Ross, Mark Radcliffe and that moron Russell Brand have destroyed any enjoyment that I had in the once excellent BBC Radio 2.

As for Radio 1 with Moyles and co :yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

ShyTorque
2nd Jun 2008, 22:56
Ross has his biggest fan (only fan?) sitting and giggling with him in the R2 studio on Saturdays. I have tried many times to listen to a full programme but have never been able to stand it. His social ineptitude is only only matched by himself on his TV show. I can no longer watch that, either.

Sarah Kennedy - if this screeching harpie mentions her holidays or cats once more --- the radio gets it. OK? Actually, I can't listen for more than about five minutes, so I don't.

Russell Brand... I should hate this guy but for obscure reasons I don't! I have actually found his programme quite entertaining, even though he's obviously deranged!!

Evans? He flies helicopters, so he's got some good in him.

We need more like Johnny Walker, an absolute star in my book.

G-CPTN
3rd Jun 2008, 01:25
Try Radio Five Live (http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/listings/day.shtml?day=today) . . .
(apart from Richard Bacon that is)

chevvron
3rd Jun 2008, 06:22
None of them are worth huge salaries, nor are premiership footballers (c130k/week?!!)

Wingswinger
3rd Jun 2008, 06:39
Terry Wogan is worth his wad.

Effluent Man
3rd Jun 2008, 08:15
Artificially restricting salaries,rather than letting the market establish them has been tried before.In that case however it ended up with half Europe being fenced off to keep in those who could command a higher figure elsewhere.

People who complain about high salaries really should examine the logic of the free market being able to do this.Ask yourself Are you a socialist?

My guess is that the answer to that question on this forum would be 99.9% negative. This isn't offering a political opinion by the way.I have been one of the few on here to defend any aspect of New Labour. (As opposed to Gordon)

Dan D'air
3rd Jun 2008, 08:37
Terry Wogan is worth his wad.

Agreed. IMHO He would be worth it for the Eurovision pi$$take alone.

Rather be Gardening
3rd Jun 2008, 08:56
Agree about Evan Davies. When I first heard him I thought he must have been some spotty schoolkid who'd won a competition to front the Today programme one morning. Then he kept coming back......

But the one I really can't bear listening to is the business correspondent Robert Peston. That ridiculous verbal delivery - makes Lloyd Grossman sound monotonal.

Effluent Man
3rd Jun 2008, 10:12
There is clearly a strong PC/Diversity agenda at the BBC. The West Indian gentleman who does programme announcements could only have been hired as a piece of positive discrimination.I don't object at all to him per se but it begs the question why not also take on a Scouse scally,A Hebridean or a canny lad from New-cassel.

Agree on Wogan, In Norfolk we call it "Squit", very amusing.

Parapunter
3rd Jun 2008, 10:24
Today's audience (of which I am one) are notoriously averse to change. I say give the lad Davies a chance, he's only been in it for five minutes.

Interestingly, one of the criteria for our nuke subs launching an all out attack in the absence of communication from government is an inability to pick up the today prog for seven days.

Seems if today isn't broadcasting, then civilisation as we know it is over & we must retaliate. One picks these things up on the journey.

airborne_artist
3rd Jun 2008, 10:42
I've become rather partial to Evan Davies' replacement on the economics/money front, Stephanie Flanders (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3094355.stm)

No raving beauty, but sounds like the sort of gal who knows how to enjoy herself. Great voice, a bit chocolatey. Her dad could sing a bit :ok:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39320000/jpg/_39320097_flanders_body203.jpg

Grayfly
3rd Jun 2008, 12:12
I am very confused by all of this. The BBC is funded by us, the licence payers. They don't have advertising revenue that I am aware of. So why do they need to attract audiences by using highly paid celebrities. The arguement appears to be that if they don't pay them enormous amounts of money they will go to commercial TV. So let them go and get back to producing quality programmes with all that spare cash. Quality programmes will attract viewers, not overpaid celebs.

Please please BBC stop trying to compete with commercial TV and use quality as a differentiator.

G-CPTN
3rd Jun 2008, 12:27
I suspect that funding is allocated on the basis of numbers of listeners/viewers, and, unfortunately the masses clamour for the 'names' (as they do with the tabloid press and such magazines as 'Hello?' . . . ).
Sadly, it's how the mass media operates.
That's life.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
3rd Jun 2008, 12:30
People who complain about high salaries really should examine the logic of the free market being able to do this.... if the free market actually worked

airborne_artist
3rd Jun 2008, 12:31
And of course the Government can now say that the BBC is completely free from any State Control.. Yeah right.

Panem et circenses - read up about the Romans, and weep.

Whirlygig
3rd Jun 2008, 12:35
So why do they need to attract audiences by using highly paid celebrities.

So they can sell the programmes abroad??

Cheers

Whirls

Overdrive
3rd Jun 2008, 12:37
No raving beauty....



I think she's subtly quite sexy there. I'd prefer her with no clothes on than you in your best suit....

Life's a Beech
3rd Jun 2008, 12:45
Effluent Man

No-one is suggesting artificially restricting salaries. The problem is that the BBC is artificially inflating salaries by only recruiting from a very limited pool of "talent". Limited in two ways, in the people considered and in the talent those people actually have.

None of these people have anything unique. I could tell you a dozen names of people who have better skills of presenting themselves and the subject they are presented with than most BBC presenters. Some of them have been on TV for specialist programmes and have been very competent, so they can talk to camera. Many of the BBC's presenters are completely unable to use correct English, a basic requirement for anyone talking for a living.

Many people would love to present television for a living. There are few positions of any prestige Supply and demand suggests that these could easily be filled. The BBC's closed shop and obsession with celebrity are the only things pushing up pay.

Effluent Man
3rd Jun 2008, 12:51
...And quite probably in her best suit to you with no clothes on.

boogie-nicey
3rd Jun 2008, 13:17
Though at first sight this is a disgraceful waste of tax payers money I doubt the BBC see it like that. The Corporation acts like some kind of "who cares" entity when it comes to money after all it's so called unique funding almost guarantees the revenue for next year (I'm starting to feel ill already). However if the BBC were forced to curtail salaries for their supposed top celebs then they'll only find other ways to waste the money in the blink of an eye. Remember it's the underlying mindset of the BBC that requires attention and if possible urgent reform not the superficial changes.

The BBC should have a PRIME responsbility to report and in the cases of it's overseas broadcasting actively promote British businesses. Now that to my mind would be great way for the BBC to conduct themselves and for us to all receive the benefits of such actions. Alas like a "don't worry it's all been payed for" student union they have the luxury of their arrogant and self appointed "we're imparting our gospel knowledge to the great unwashed out there" agenda.

I wonder how many other performance shortcomings there are at the BBC but have yet to be uncovered. They seem to be very happy in having secret filming against almost every company, government, everyman and his dog accusing them of wrong doing yet are themselves imune from investigation. The BBC in this day and age is coughing and spluttering with people able to bypass the world service and get any news from all corners of the globe in an instance. Gone are the days of the mud hut villagers desperate for some transistor radio to give them a link to the outside world, that's just romantic nostalgia from yesteryear.

Instead they show themselves up by squandering money away on quite frankly damp celebs. Mr. Jonathan Ross is no Parkinson nor Bruce Forsyth there's a difference between natural talent and hot air big mouths.

I think the BBC realy is past it's self by date it didn't have to be that way but the BBC has had an array of opportunities to "up" it's game but has always reverted back to the cosiness of the status-quo.

The internet has clearly demonstrated that you don't always need excess of funding in order to attain success. How many bands and or personalities have used this novel approach to really launch themselves. Why can't the BBC resort to this mode of thinking rather than the tired old TV and radio shows that unfortunately plague our lives. Quality programmes please, not the hiring of ever more staff with egos. You broadcast stick to that and please don't stray, in this time of technology shouldn't the BBC being cutting staff through natural wastage too?

You can start with the Ross bloke, his dress sense makes bozo the clown look cool and while he's at it get a hair too. As for the Radio well I don't think all these write your own cheque breakfast teams are worth a fraction of their salary. The radio programme is nothing more than drivel with a quick music track played every now and then to stop people from nodding back off to sleep again. It's utterly pointless rubbish being spouted out every morning.

G-CPTN
9th Nov 2008, 14:10
Comedian Russell Brand has said his infamous broadcast with Jonathan Ross was toned down to take out the "more personal stuff" before it went on air.
But Brand has revealed the worst bits were cut out before the broadcast.
(From:- BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Brand admits to more lewd remarks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7718451.stm) )

1DC
9th Nov 2008, 15:20
Thirty odd years ago i was talking to an old gentleman who mournfully told me that he realised it was the beginning of the end for the BBC when the newsreader was allowed to read the new without getting dressed properly and stopped wearing a black tie!! How standards have changed..

dazdaz
9th Nov 2008, 16:45
G-CPTN

"Try Radio Five Live (http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/listings/day.shtml?day=today) . . .
(apart from Richard Bacon that is)".......Nowt wrong with Dickie Bacon, it's that Dotun Adebayo I can't stand. Even more so when he has his wife in the studio...Ahhhh She breaks out the odd song from callers request. So cheesy it makes me cringe.

Bring back 'Diddy' David Hamalton/DLT and the guy who really missed out, Simon Dee, he did a retro program on C4 few years ago 'Dee Time' Could still knock spots of Ross.

Post script....Has anyone had a looksie for the salaries of celebrities/actors working for other (non BBC) channels/production companies You might be surprised as to the big they earn.

handysnaks
9th Nov 2008, 17:28
...and just to show the problems the Beeb have keeping everybody happy!
I think Chris Evans is a real tonic in the evening. Age has definitely improved his show.:p

Krystal n chips
9th Nov 2008, 17:37
One more readily associates gin with tonic..which is enjoyable...unlike the Chris Evans show which is more akin to paraquat and tonic :E.....and if the Beeb are having a serial culling exercise, then it would be the perfect time to get rid of three other waste of salary and utterly useless "presenters".....Steve Wright, Sally "I get confused by the different roads in the UK" Traffic and finally, Sarah :mad: Kennedy....she just gets worse !

Saintsman
9th Nov 2008, 18:43
None of them are worth huge salaries, nor are premiership footballers (c130k/week?!!)

There's a myth promoted that if you don't pay the high somes demanded, football clubs and the BBC will lose their best people. The trouble is that there is only so many people that the 'opposition' need so they can't take everyone.

Besides, you may have a star in your hands at the moment but they all started somewhere as a nobody. Nothing wrong at bringing more nobodies on and paying them significantly less for the privilage.

tony draper
9th Nov 2008, 18:59
Is it necessary to have a World Service?, not as if we are running the bloody place now is it,why should the British licence payer fork out money to provide a service to countries like India who can apparently send probes to the moon and must thereby be perfectly capable of building and running radio stations of their own to inform their population of world events
Not knocking India here, just using it as a example,one has a lot of time for the Indian folks.
:rolleyes:

2close
9th Nov 2008, 19:09
If you took the sexual innuendoes and his infatuation with his own sexual prowess out of Jonathon Woss' TV or radio shows, how long would his show last? I'm no prude but it gets tedious.

I'm just longing for the day when one of his guests drops him.

The constant innane giggling on his radio show is just simply f***ing irritating!!

And as for his wooden film reviews......:rolleyes:

Serious lack of talent.

frostbite
9th Nov 2008, 20:16
You must be mistaken there, Mr Crew.

It was not so long ago that some executive plonker at the beeb described the workforce as 'horribly white' (or words to that effect).

ShyTorque
9th Nov 2008, 21:03
I'm very, very glad that Ross's social ineptitude has finally caught up with him. I really can't stand the bloke (as per my post #13 from 2nd June).

Btw, he's no longer listed as a presenter on the BBC Radio 2 website. Brand too. Expunged, both of them. :D

Effluent Man
10th Nov 2008, 09:23
While I agree in the case of Ross,and certainly did agree in the case of Brand,because of the hoo-hah I watched the latter's TV show on 4 last week and found myself laughing out loud,something usually reserved for Phoenix Nights or Father Ted.I don't like Brand especially but have to admit it was quite funny. The involvement of the pious Daily Mail in this does tend to bias me towards Brand as I dislike them more than him.

merlinxx
10th Nov 2008, 09:58
I may be wrong, but does not the FCO fund the World Service?

CATIII-NDB
10th Nov 2008, 11:41
The World service is the best part of the BBC's output.

It has a lot less of the Bow,Scrape, OBN, R4 Today program's assortment of Has beens, never wasers, formally member of.. , look I played sport once, look I have an opinon bunch.The emasculated World at One (Cut short - sadly) Ex contributers. - Shi**y lets play a music item totally out of context (for the Youooth Audence - all 30 or so of them listening.). Etc.

PS I forgot " Nought for the day" remember that Cleric going on about his old Labrador priceless !

Well Its jest blast.

CATIII.