BBC pay....

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

E CLASS

Active Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
411
BBC News - BBC annual report reveals fall in star pay

Given that we are forced to pay their salaries we should damn well know who's paid what - its a public organisation.

Hiding behind this worry that the competition will then know how much more to pay to attract them is rubbish!

Its blinking criminal.

I don't see there being a TV licence in 5 years time - the BBC is mostly repeats and runs a very poor news service - dull presenters to kick off with.
 
You are Rupert Murdoch--- I have a copy of today' Sun newspaper ---- and I claim my voucher for a lifetime's free subscription to the News of the World.;)
 
Last edited:
I don't see there being a TV licence in 5 years time - the BBC is mostly repeats and runs a very poor news service - dull presenters to kick off with.

I'm no fan of being forced to pay a licence, but you really can't dent some of the fantastic TV they produce. If you can't find a few shows on the BBC that your interested in, I'd be flabbergasted.

Things like Doctor Who and Torchwood, Top Gear, Miranda, The Wonder's series', Panorama, BBC News, QI, Mock the Week, Have I got News for You, The Sky at Night, just to name a few - and that's just stuff I'm interested in. Then there's radio on top of that. It really does cater for pretty much everyone's tastes.

On top of that, I can't even remember the last time I watched ITV for example - and that's free....
 
BBC News is one of the best, but not without its significant short comings.

-The need to repeat the same news headline 3 or more times within a 30 minute slot
-Unable to interview politicians in a non-confrontational manner
-General poor presentation of science news
-Including celebrity news

On the whole I prefer the Channel 4 news format, despite it having some of the same short comings.
 
BBC News is one of the best, but not without its significant short comings.

-The need to repeat the same news headline 3 or more times within a 30 minute slot
-Unable to interview politicians in a non-confrontational manner
-General poor presentation of science news
-Including celebrity news

- Plugging their forthcoming programmes and passing it off as news !


Still a high quality news service though.
 
A friend of mine whom directs and produces some shows for national TV abroad once told me.

"The BBC, is education for every other media outlet. There is nothing like it and working for it would be a dream for every news journalist/documentary producer/interviewer/comedian/ etc etc."

I second that. I think is not a just a national treasure. Its a world treasure and I happily pay my licence fee towards it
 
I agree, every time I buy something, anything, from anybody, I will damn well demand to know their salary because...I'm paying it. (tongue in cheek emoticon here).
 
I ordered a pizza from a well known Pizza chain the other day, i refused to pay until they told me how much they earned, they refused so i walked out without paying or a pizza, that'll teach them :wallbash:
 
BBC News is one of the best, but not without its significant short comings.

-The need to repeat the same news headline 3 or more times within a 30 minute slot
-Unable to interview politicians in a non-confrontational manner
-General poor presentation of science news
-Including celebrity news

On the whole I prefer the Channel 4 news format, despite it having some of the same short comings.

So not that great at all....agreed on Channel 4 though.
 
There is nothing like it and working for it would be a dream for every news journalist/documentary producer/interviewer/comedian/ etc etc."

Sort of suggests that the BBC can employ and retain staff at lower rates then ....
 
Here are the stats:

Viewers have seen a 4 per cent rise in repeats over the last three years.

Almost 80% of BBC4's output

84% of BBC3

50% of BBC2's

33% of BBC1's programming are made up of repeats.

Factor in a 10% reduction in BBC budget in 2012 and repeats are set to rise further.

Yes they do a few good programmes like TG and other odds and sods but I personally don't think its worth it.

I listen to TalkSport, Radio 4 for morning news, plus PM at 5 (if I'm near a car)

Adverts still exist on the BBC - they are forever trailing, talking about other programmes its wholly annoying as much as ads are.

To pick just one - was Jonathan Ross's £16.9million three-year deal, signed back in mid-2006 good value in anyones opinion? Not mine!
 
So not that great at all....agreed on Channel 4 though.

Ah yes. C4 news. That has Jon Snow on board as senior person. A man who IMO is gradually climbing what I call the Dryce Pilger scale.

(Dryce Pilger scale ranks from 1 to 11 where 1 is highly credible reporter, analyst, or commentator. 10 is totally non-credible reporter, analyst or comentator. Pilger ranks as a 10.).

Jon Snow ranks as a 5.3 on the Dryce Pilger scale. Watchable, informative, but a bit batty and doesn't realise it.
 
I ordered a pizza from a well known Pizza chain the other day, i refused to pay until they told me how much they earned, they refused so i walked out without paying or a pizza, that'll teach them :wallbash:

The difference is... nobody forced you by order of the law to buy that pizza...whether you wanted it or not or whether you liked it or not!

A TV licence is a different matter - do you pay yours out of interest?


If BBC was 'pay to view' how many would happily pay £145.50??
 
Why don't you start a new thread with a poll to see what MBClub members decide.

But do we need a poll to decide on the phrase of the loaded question? ;)
 
If BBC was 'pay to view' how many would happily pay £145.50??

If the BBC was pay-per-view it would be crammed full of adverts as it made up for lost revenue and was forced to compete against every other commercial broadcaster.

And if the current quality of BBC programmes isn't to your liking wait until they have to start chasing ratings to keep the advertisers happy.

As a result the BBC would end up resembling another load of Sky-type trash and there's more than enough of that about already.
 
If BBC was 'pay to view' how many would happily pay £145.50??

No-one would - but that's not the model is it? The fact that it isn't pay-per-view or subscription-based means that money can be invested on things that appeal to a smaller audience and be treated in a reasonable fashion.

The stats you quote are spurious Daily Mail rantings - nothing in there about the limited time that BBC3/4 are on, the funding they receive, or the new programmes that are piloted first on those channels before making it to the mainstream BBC1/2 (which are then counted as repeats I suppose). Nothing about viewing and repeat windows, educational programmes repeated overnight, etc, etc.

Recent programmes that have sparked / renewed interests or have been thought provoking & enlightening:

Wonders of the Universe - a bit shallow for me when the suject is my hobby, but the wife and kids now understand one of my obsessions

The Life of Muhammed - interesting background info

Art Deco Icons - Mrs E's choice

British Masters - good intro into C20 british art

Fake or Fortune? - sounded like a game show, but we all ended up really enjoying it and looked forward to the next one.

Glastonbury Coverage

Friday night music stuff on BBC4

Spiral - The Butcher of La Villette


That's just off the top of my head over the last few weeks.

Stuff on Sky that's had the same impact:

Through the Wormhole.... now I'm struggling


Sky is great for loads of choice, movies (with no ads), sport (rugby, cricket, cycling) but very little actually gets me actively engaged. If it wasn't for getting it at half price now, we wouldn't bother with it.

So for us, I get more real value, pound for pound, out of the £145 licence fee than the £300+ Sky costs.

I can't seem to get too excited about the money people earn, unless it's the hugely inflated sums that prima donnas get paid for licking an inflated pig's bladder around (and they can't even do that for 90 mins either...). If you want to complain about the cost of broadcasting and lack of transparency, I'd start at the door of Sky Sports and not the BBC.
 
Isn't it more akin to Dragon? Always leading with a news story from the Beeb or the Daily Wail?

Dragon is just silly, prwales has the chip.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom