PDA

View Full Version : BBC


GKOC41
31st Jan 2018, 15:54
With all this mularky going on at the BBC ref equal pay and Carrie Gracie has anyone asked if the male Sky Presenters get as much as Kay Burley?
#fullofherself

charliegolf
31st Jan 2018, 16:37
I cannot stick the woman. And you made me think about her. Bad you!

CG

connoisseur
31st Jan 2018, 16:58
I dont think anyone has, but then again most male Sky presenters are crap at their jobs so no surprise there then eh;)

Mike6567
31st Jan 2018, 17:25
She is very good at reporting royal births live from outside St Mary's Paddington.

vctenderness
31st Jan 2018, 17:32
Carrie Bloody Gracie should think herself lucky. Who can honestly say they had heard of her until this non story blew up?

She’ll be on Strickley, Big Brother, I’m a Celebrity etc. Before the end of the year and making big bucks!

....as for Kay Burley the less said, or seen, the better.

KelvinD
31st Jan 2018, 17:38
Losing out on over £100K over a couple of years. That really is lucky!

Krystal n chips
31st Jan 2018, 18:07
Carrie Bloody Gracie should think herself lucky. Who can honestly say they had heard of her until this non story blew up?

She’ll be on Strickley, Big Brother, I’m a Celebrity etc. Before the end of the year and making big bucks!

....as for Kay Burley the less said, or seen, the better.

Erm, me perhaps.

Whilst not falling in the more widely known presenters, she was certainly prominent enough to be noted. She also falls into that, rare for the Beeb in many cases, category of presenter and reporter who doesn't / didn't hector the viewer.

The Beeb have always seemed to manage to ensure a certain form of inflection is required when presenting ...with one notable exception, "Spangles" now thankfully long gone.

Carry0nLuggage
31st Jan 2018, 18:27
And like the retirement age and pensions they've fallen into the be-careful-what-you-wish-for trap.

Mostly Harmless
31st Jan 2018, 19:04
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DU3y13lXkAANvLP.jpg:large

goudie
31st Jan 2018, 19:20
Kay Burley and Piers Morgan, both rather despicable people. IMHO, who on Earth is able to watch them?
If I accidentally come across either of them on TV I grab the remote and thankfully they're gone.

Toadstool
1st Feb 2018, 03:22
Carrie Bloody Gracie should think herself lucky. Who can honestly say they had heard of her until this non story blew up?

Sheíll be on Strickley, Big Brother, Iím a Celebrity etc. Before the end of the year and making big bucks!

....as for Kay Burley the less said, or seen, the better.

Carrie Bloody Gracie should think herself lucky.

For what exactly? For not speaking out against mysogynistic and outdated viewpoints earlier? Get back in the kitchen woman!:ugh:

I have a question. Do you think a female should be paid half of what their male counterparts get paid, despite being just as qualified?

G0ULI
1st Feb 2018, 04:38
I was always given to understand that journalists are paid according to the contents of their personal contacts book, not qualifications or gender.

tartare
1st Feb 2018, 05:05
As a former BBC world news staffer I can tell you Carrie is highly respected by newsroom staff inside the corporation.
Knows her stuff, delivers and up there with many of the bigfoots (high profile correspondents).
You may not know her that well in the UK cos she ain't on `home' news that much.
Mrs T spent five years working on Foreign Planning, so knows em all.
Gracie is one of the ones Mrs T rates well.

vctenderness
1st Feb 2018, 09:26
For what exactly? For not speaking out against mysogynistic and outdated viewpoints earlier? Get back in the kitchen woman!:ugh:

I have a question. Do you think a female should be paid half of what their male counterparts get paid, despite being just as qualified?

That depends on the circumstances. Do you think the players of Arsenalís womenís team should be paid the same as the men?

Should a newly qualified female pilot be paid the same as a senior male Pilot?

In my house Iím the one in the bloody kitchen:ok:

pr00ne
1st Feb 2018, 09:28
You entirely miss the point!

Of course a newly joined female pilot shouldn't be paid the same as a senior male pilot, the whole point is that they shouldn't be paid less merely FOR BEING FEMALE.

MungoP
1st Feb 2018, 09:51
Maybe someone in the know can enlighten me. Don't these on screen 'talents' have agents negotiating for them ? I can't imagine an in-house list of job opportunities being pasted up on the notice board. Isn't it then up to the individual to say yea or nay to what's being offered ?

eal401
1st Feb 2018, 12:27
the whole point is that they shouldn't be paid less merely FOR BEING FEMALE.

I'd like to see actual, irrefutable evidence of that. Was Carrie Gracie's job 100% like-for-like identical in terms of responsibilities, objectives, performance etc. than the men who are now paid less?

gemma10
1st Feb 2018, 13:02
Kay Burley and Piers Morgan, both rather despicable people. IMHO, who on Earth is able to watch them?
If I accidentally come across either of them on TV I grab the remote and thankfully they're gone.


The same applies to that glottal twit Robert Peston.

VP959
1st Feb 2018, 13:41
Part of the problem is historical, and sod all to do with gender. Lots of organisations have exactly the same apparent "gender imbalance" problem, but it's down to the way pay rates have been determined, and changed, over the years.

I can recall a newly promoted 1* civilian "fast track" individual complaining bitterly to me that he was paid more than £20K less then his colleagues at the same level. Gender didn't come into it at all, it was just that some of his colleagues were maybe 10 or 15 years older and had worked through the old days, where there was an incremental pay scale, meaning your pay went up every year regardless.

When performance-related pay was introduced all those who had attained reasonably good salaries under the old system retained them, but new entrants to that level started on the basic salary level, so were always way behind.

From some of the comments that have been made by people like John Humphreys, it seems that something similar happened within the BBC. Those that were in the job when there was a strong demand for news presenters were paid larger salaries, and when the demand for news presenters dropped off they retained them, whereas newer recruits, of any gender, were just paid the going rate at the time they were hired for that job.

It's not fair, but I suspect every single industry has similar examples. As a general rule, when demand for a particular role drops, the pay offered to newcomers to it drops, but those already doing the job get to stay on their same high salary.

Arguably pay to existing staff should be able to go down as well as up, with changes in demand and the market, but in practice it seems pretty rare for pay to go down. When you then add in the impact of annual pay increases that may be related to inflation in some jobs (like the BBC, I suspect) then those on the highest pay get the larger pay increases, in cash terms, and that makes things look worse over the longer term.

yellowtriumph
1st Feb 2018, 13:51
Part of the problem is historical, and sod all to do with gender. Lots of organisations have exactly the same apparent "gender imbalance" problem, but it's down to the way pay rates have been determined, and changed, over the years.

I can recall a newly promoted 1* civilian "fast track" individual complaining bitterly to me that he was paid more than £20K less then his colleagues at the same level. Gender didn't come into it at all, it was just that some of his colleagues were maybe 10 or 15 years older and had worked through the old days, where there was an incremental pay scale, meaning your pay went up every year regardless.

When performance-related pay was introduced all those who had attained reasonably good salaries under the old system retained them, but new entrants to that level started on the basic salary level, so were always way behind.

From some of the comments that have been made by people like John Humphreys, it seems that something similar happened within the BBC. Those that were in the job when there was a strong demand for news presenters were paid larger salaries, and when the demand for news presenters dropped off they retained them, whereas newer recruits, of any gender, were just paid the going rate at the time they were hired for that job.

It's not fair, but I suspect every single industry has similar examples. As a general rule, when demand for a particular role drops, the pay offered to newcomers to it drops, but those already doing the job get to stay on their same high salary.

Arguably pay to existing staff should be able to go down as well as up, with changes in demand and the market, but in practice it seems pretty rare for pay to go down. When you then add in the impact of annual pay increases that may be related to inflation in some jobs (like the BBC, I suspect) then those on the highest pay get the larger pay increases, in cash terms, and that makes things look worse over the longer term.

My understanding, and of course I may be wrong, is that some of these BBC people did, and likely still do, provide their services to the BBC via a company. In which case, why did the BBC not simply terminate the original high cost service contracts as their term naturally came to an end coinciding with reduced demand and offer new contracts on reduced terms?

I think some of the people concerned, Huw Edwards for example, are actually employed directly by the BBC and so reductions in base salary will have all sorts of implications, for pensions rights etc.

VP959
1st Feb 2018, 15:04
My understanding, and of course I may be wrong, is that some of these BBC people did, and likely still do, provide their services to the BBC via a company. In which case, why did the BBC not simply terminate the original high cost service contracts as their term naturally came to an end coinciding with reduced demand and offer new contracts on reduced terms?

I think some of the people concerned, Huw Edwards for example, are actually employed directly by the BBC and so reductions in base salary will have all sorts of implications, for pensions rights etc.

I have a feeling, and it may equally be wrong, that it's only in the past few years that the BBC has been "buying in" people, via companies, rather than employing staff direct. It was also historically pretty poor at controlling it's own finances, I think.

That could be a part of the problem, too, as older staff that are employees could have stayed on higher pay, whilst newer "staff", perhaps employed via companies, rather than directly, could have been employed via some form of competitive market process.

Part of the problem is that the BBC is largely publicly funded yet not very transparent about pay rates. For most of the public sector pay rates are published as scales or bands, and have been for decades, but it seems the BBC is a bit of a law unto itself.

As an example, I was working with a BBC producer on a job for them (unrelated to my main job) and we had something come up which significantly impacted the production cost. When I asked if it would be a problem he just sort of shrugged and said no one ever seemed to control budgets at the BBC, anyway, and he had no idea what his budget was. He'd come from working for Ch 4, and found the laxity with which the BBC controlled finances a bit odd, but then this was around 15 years ago, and I suspect things have changed a fair bit since. It does tally with a remark John Humphreys made last week, about "cash swilling about" in the BBC at around that time.

Il Vero Padrino
1st Feb 2018, 16:44
All this sheningans has proved, if proof were needed, is that few if any BBC presenters are worth what they get from the BBC in the open market. All these people are taking "voluntary" cuts, but has any of them been made a better offer? Most of them are unemployable outside the BBC, and only employed inside it because they are protected by the useless, idle, grossly overstaffed and overpaid management.

I got some schadenfreude from the way in which the womens' demand for equal pay was satisfied by reducing the men's pay rather than increasing womens' pay. But it was short-lived.

If the BBC were to have as an absolute rule that no-one, "talent" or management, is worth more than £150K a year, including all remuneration, and that 85% of the so-called management have utterly pointless non-jobs and should go now, we might restore the BBC to its former glory, run by people who know and care about what they are doing.

But that's not going to happen, so I'll vote for whichever party abolishes the licence fee and sets the BBC loose into the real world, to earn its living from advertising.

PDR1
1st Feb 2018, 17:24
I'd like to see actual, irrefutable evidence of that. Was Carrie Gracie's job 100% like-for-like identical in terms of responsibilities, objectives, performance etc. than the men who are now paid less?

Well the wiki page notes that:

Burley has hosted more hours of live television than any other news presenter.

So she has had lots of opportunity, and given that she is a mature female still working in a sector which has traditionally dumped female on-screen talent when in their early 40s, replacing them with less talented nubility, she's clearly not regarded as lacking in performance or behaviour.

Probably as near to answering your question as we'll get.

PDR

PDR1
1st Feb 2018, 17:26
All this sheningans has proved, if proof were needed, is that few if any BBC presenters are worth what they get from the BBC in the open market. All these people are taking "voluntary" cuts, but has any of them been made a better offer? Most of them are unemployable outside the BBC, and only employed inside it because they are protected by the useless, idle, grossly overstaffed and overpaid management.


Well it has been reported that the ones who are paid in the >£300k region got that because the BBC matched offers from elsewhere, so I'm not sure your suggestion stands scrutiny.

PDR

Il Vero Padrino
1st Feb 2018, 18:10
It's not an unknown bargaining tactic; but assuming that the "offers from elsewhere" were real, I wonder why the BBC thought it necessary to match them? The attraction to the commercial stations must be that they pull in more viewers. The BBC doesn't have to worry about that, as opposed to providing a top-quality broadcasting/news service which can be done with excellent presenters on £150K.

Forgive me for thinking that if the BBC had called the bluff of presenters demanding £300K and waving offers for that, some or all of those offers might have proved more illusory than real. In the course of a very long life, I have never, ever, regretted saying "You'd better take it, then", which is my invariable and immediate response to anyone claiming they have a better offer, including employees hoping for an unearned pay rise. (**)

Would we have missed those presenters who were persuaded to stay? Do we even know who they are? Do we care? Would we stop watching the shows they are on if they are faded out? No, no, no and no.

Would the Today programme be improved if Humphries were put out to grass/headhunted by a radio station (ummm, can't think of one that would want him). Yes, it would. It's tired and formulaic, and Humphries has made the mistake of becoming the story. It needs good reporters, good interviewers, new blood, getting <=£150K/year. Not grand-standing, self-satisfied, verbose, ageing has-beens.

MungoP
1st Feb 2018, 20:07
ageing has-beens.

We're all ageing and hope to keep doing so.

G-CPTN
1st Feb 2018, 23:03
Perhaps Humphries and his ilk know where the bodies are buried.

tartare
2nd Feb 2018, 00:47
Yes - the more senior staff have agents negotiating for them - and yes many do provide their services to the BBC via their own companies eg:
BBC Two - Newsnight - Kirsty Wark (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/2PYGyXFlBfFtYXJc4N3zwyk/kirsty-wark)
Although I was by no means anywhere near as senior as either Wark or Gracie - I started off contracting as a journalist and producer to the BBC via my own company, before being made staff.
From memory however - I think Carrie is staff.
Tony Hall fronted a Commons committee yesterday trying to explain the spread of ranges of talent and how that meant there was a range of salaries - in essence trying to say it was performance based.
If that's the case though - funny how all the girls didn't perform as well as the boys...?

VP959
2nd Feb 2018, 08:01
Yes - the more senior staff have agents negotiating for them - and yes many do provide their services to the BBC via their own companies eg:
BBC Two - Newsnight - Kirsty Wark (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/2PYGyXFlBfFtYXJc4N3zwyk/kirsty-wark)
Although I was by no means anywhere near as senior as either Wark or Gracie - I started off contracting as a journalist and producer to the BBC via my own company, before being made staff.
From memory however - I think Carrie is staff.
Tony Hall fronted a Commons committee yesterday trying to explain the spread of ranges of talent and how that meant there was a range of salaries - in essence trying to say it was performance based.
If that's the case though - funny how all the girls didn't perform as well as the boys...?

Presumably market forces drive salaries when selections are made in this way, and if the market at the time of recruitment has a gender bias (and a lot do) then that will show in salaries.

I wonder how much a bloke would be offered to work as an F1 "grid boy" for example?

If there was a greater demand for male presenters in the global market in which the BBC is trying to recruit from, then it's pretty inevitable that they would be able to negotiate higher pay rates initially.

The same would apply if it were the other way around.

The chances are that the BBC didn't even think about the gender bias this might introduce when they started competing to get the "right" people for any job.

Uplinker
2nd Feb 2018, 10:13
But that's not going to happen, so I'll vote for whichever party abolishes the licence fee and sets the BBC loose into the real world, to earn its living from advertising.

Be very careful what you wish for.

If BBC took advertising, the whole of UK TV would go downhill and that would be the end of quality television. The advertising budget would be spread more thinly, so ITV, Ch4 and othersí programs would suffer as well as those on the BBC.

At the moment, the BBC is one of the few places where one can watch or listen to a well made intelligent program about the arts or history or music without constant interruptions by banal, attention grabbing, highly compressed (i.e. loud), stupid adverts. 12 minutes of every hour are put aside for adverts.

The BBC is far from perfect. It is currently not very well managed, the presenters salaries are (all) frankly ridiculous, and it needs a good shake up - I left the corporation years ago because budgets were being spent on more managers instead of the equipment we needed - BUT, like the NHS, it is a classic British institution that deserves to be retained and sorted out. We would all be the poorer without it.

Krystal n chips
2nd Feb 2018, 10:40
Be very careful what you wish for.

If BBC took advertising, the whole of UK TV would go downhill and that would be the end of quality television. The advertising budget would be spread more thinly, so ITV, Ch4 and othersí programs would suffer as well as those on the BBC.

At the moment, the BBC is one of the few places where one can watch or listen to a well made intelligent program about the arts or history or music without constant interruptions by banal, attention grabbing, highly compressed (i.e. loud), stupid adverts. 12 minutes of every hour are put aside for adverts.

The BBC is far from perfect. It is currently not very well managed, the presenters salaries are (all) frankly ridiculous, and it needs a good shake up - I left the corporation years ago because budgets were being spent on more managers instead of the equipment we needed - BUT, like the NHS, it is a classic British institution that deserves to be retained and sorted out. We would all be the poorer without it.

You do realise, that, posting a factual, definitive and supportive of the BBC post ( which, thankfully, quite a few of us are ) here on JB constitutes sedition in the minds of the many detractors don't you.

The only point I would politely dispute is the " 12 mins of every hour" concerning commercial channels because the frequency of the adverts does seem to be considerably longer and invariably timed to be aired at the more interesting moments in a programme, and, by a" happy coincidence" at the same times as other channels.

Sallyann1234
2nd Feb 2018, 12:56
The spacing and duration of commercial breaks is necessarily varied in order to prevent anyone automating a process to mute them when live or to edit them out on playback.

Wyler
2nd Feb 2018, 13:07
Much as I dislike some of the goings on at the BBC, especially grossly inflated wages for people who read out loud for a living, at 40p a day it is an absolute bargain.
Some true quality programmes i.e Blue Planet and some great radio.
It is also a great 'go to' haven when abroad.
I'd even pay more to keep it!!!!

TURIN
2nd Feb 2018, 13:10
Indeed. Long live the BBC in its current non commercial guise.
It is ridiculously good value for money. Radio,website and TV.
I despise adverts. I make a point of recording programmes that are on commercial channels and skip through the ads.

yellowtriumph
2nd Feb 2018, 13:20
The spacing and duration of commercial breaks is necessarily varied in order to prevent anyone automating a process to mute them when live or to edit them out on playback.

The frequency and duration etc of commercial breaks is controlled by their regulator - Ofcom. If anyone is interested the 'rules' are on their website.

Bee Rexit
2nd Feb 2018, 13:29
The spacing and duration of commercial breaks is necessarily varied in order to prevent anyone automating a process to mute them when live or to edit them out on playback.

We record any programmes we wish to watch on commercial TV and our Freeview box (Panasonic DMR-HWT150EB if anyone is interested) jumps the whole ad break with a long press on the FF button. Was very pleased when I discovered that little trick because I didn't see it written down anywhere (doesn't work on HD recordings though?). I would love the BBC to go commercial. It isn't as great as it it made out to be.

Highway1
2nd Feb 2018, 13:30
Be very careful what you wish for.

If BBC took advertising, the whole of UK TV would go downhill and that would be the end of quality television. The advertising budget would be spread more thinly, so ITV, Ch4 and othersí programs would suffer as well as those on the BBC.

At the moment, the BBC is one of the few places where one can watch or listen to a well made intelligent program about the arts or history or music without constant interruptions by banal, attention grabbing, highly compressed (i.e. loud), stupid adverts. 12 minutes of every hour are put aside for adverts.

The BBC is far from perfect. It is currently not very well managed, the presenters salaries are (all) frankly ridiculous, and it needs a good shake up - I left the corporation years ago because budgets were being spent on more managers instead of the equipment we needed - BUT, like the NHS, it is a classic British institution that deserves to be retained and sorted out. We would all be the poorer without it.

That argument is being decimated by technology. I dont know anyone in the US who sits through ads any more except during live sports games and the local news, the rest of the time they time-shift programs to remove the ads or watch services like Netflix.

i feel you are like King Canute trying to protect a 1920's ideal from a tidal wave of technological progress.

Blacksheep
2nd Feb 2018, 13:37
but assuming that the "offers from elsewhere" were real, I wonder why the BBC thought it necessary to match them? We watch a lot of Al Jazeera and RT programmes and it's worthy of comment on how many of their presenters are ex-BBC people - even the weather forecasters.

yellowtriumph
2nd Feb 2018, 13:45
That argument is being decimated by technology. I dont know anyone in the US who sits through ads any more except during live sports games and the local news, the rest of the time they time-shift programs to remove the ads or watch services like Netflix.

i feel you are like King Canute trying to protect a 1920's ideal from a tidal wave of technological progress.

You present a reasonable argument of course. In the UK the major public sector commercial broadcaster has long realised this and is moving into the ownership and production of content. The income from advertising is increasingly forming a lower, but currently still significant, proportion of their total income.

Sallyann1234
2nd Feb 2018, 13:45
The frequency and duration etc of commercial breaks is controlled by their regulator - Ofcom. If anyone is interested the 'rules' are on their website.
I'm very familiar with those rules thank you. They allow plenty of freedom for broadcasters to space the breaks for the purpose I mentioned above.

yellowtriumph
2nd Feb 2018, 14:03
I'm very familiar with those rules thank you. They allow plenty of freedom for broadcasters to space the breaks for the purpose I mentioned above.

I know nothing about you, who you are or what you do although you have given us all a clue now.

Other people do read these threads, and your post was an opportunity to bring information to the wider audience. It''s not always about me or you as you will note from the last sentence of my original post.

Sallyann1234
2nd Feb 2018, 14:57
I know nothing about you, who you are or what you do although you have given us all a clue now.

Other people do read these threads, and your post was an opportunity to bring information to the wider audience. It''s not always about me or you as you will note from the last sentence of my original post.
I don't work in broadcasting as such, but like many others I have considered how the commercial breaks might be edited out for my own satisfaction. Hence the need to check the rules.
Unfortunately the broadcasters have sufficient latitude and means to defeat such methods. Otherwise they would go out of business.

yellowtriumph
2nd Feb 2018, 15:18
I don't work in broadcasting as such, but like many others I have considered how the commercial breaks might be edited out for my own satisfaction. Hence the need to check the rules.
Unfortunately the broadcasters have sufficient latitude and means to defeat such methods. Otherwise they would go out of business.

I might say 'Fortunately' rather than 'Unfortunately' as otherwise it would imperil the jobs of many people employed in the television industry, then there would be fewer programmes for you to edit the breaks from!

But I understand the direction you are coming from - from a viewers perspective.

Sallyann1234
2nd Feb 2018, 15:31
You are absolutely right, of course.

KelvinD
2nd Feb 2018, 15:46
The commercial breaks things is one reason I highly value the little button on my TV remote control that allows an instant switch to the last selected channel. If watching during the day, I select either the BBC news channel or their parliament channel. Then, as the adverts come on, a push of the button whips me back to the BBC channels.

Blacksheep
2nd Feb 2018, 16:20
i feel you are like King Canute trying to protect a 1920's ideal from a tidal wave of technological progress.Cnut is a good example but not in the way you suggest. Cnut was actually demonstrating to his courtiers the limit of his powers and the futility of defying the inevitable.

Nige321
2nd Feb 2018, 20:08
Carrie Bloody Gracie should think herself lucky. Who can honestly say they had heard of her until this non story blew up?

Sheíll be on Strickley, Big Brother, Iím a Celebrity etc. Before the end of the year and making big bucks!

....as for Kay Burley the less said, or seen, the better.

Carrie Gracie is one of the BBC's best known and respected journalists.
And no, she won't be on Strickley(sic), Big Brother or I'm a Celebrity.
For a start, she has a daughter with leukemia.
I doubt she'd be interested...

Nige321
2nd Feb 2018, 20:10
I'd like to see actual, irrefutable evidence of that. Was Carrie Gracie's job 100% like-for-like identical in terms of responsibilities, objectives, performance etc. than the men who are now paid less?

No, her job wasn't 100% like-for-like. It was a lot harder than, for instance, John Sopel's cushy number in Washington. His pay was double hers...