View previous topic | View next topic

BBC pay

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

GuyBarry
1243734.  Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:30 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

If you scroll down the list to the "V to Z" section, you'll find an entry for "Gwyneth Williams, Controller, Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra". If you click on her name, you'll not only find out that she earns a salary of £183,618 and a total remuneration of £192,418, you can even check on details of expenses that she's claimed since 2010. For instance, on the 11th August 2014, she spent £20 on a taxi fare in Edinburgh.


Ah, thanks. Interesting!

Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
Why do people so often assume that if actors and actresses aren't "on the telly", they must be out of work? Strange.


Fair point. Mea culpa. Although I'm guessing that her pay packet has probably taken a big hit from the days when she was appearing on a prime-time BBC sitcom.


I doubt that! Someone like Su Pollard is big box-office, precisely because she once appeared on a prime-time BBC sitcom. People will pay good money to see the stars of the past. I would imagine that she's doing very well for herself indeed - and don't forget the repeat fees!

 
GuyBarry
1243739.  Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:02 am Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
It was "received wisdom" amongst my peer group as a teenager that the BBC wanted/instructed the DJs to talk over the intro of records to frustrate those who wanted to record the songs onto cassettes.


I doubt that. In the case of Chris Evans, I'm sure it's all about his own ego. Other Radio 2 presenters (such as Johnnie Walker, who I mentioned above) don't talk over the music, because they see the music as more important - whereas the likes of Chris Evans think that they're more important than the music. That's what happens when you're paid £2.2 million a year.

 
suze
1243741.  Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:39 am Reply with quote

I've been doing a bit of reading about this. It seems that the habit of talking over the intro began in the US in the 60s, and that it was done for three reasons.

One was to discourage home taping, which wasn't yet held illegal in the US (that came in the 80s) but was certainly not encouraged by the music industry.

Two was to "energize" the show, which was apparently considered especially important for breakfast shows. Less important for shows which aired at night such as John Peel's.

Three, talking over the intros enables one more record to be played per hour.

I don't suppose anyone tapes songs off the radio any more. Quite apart from all the legitimate streaming and download services which now exist, it's trivially easy to download a song from YouTube for no money.

The other two things presumably still apply.

 
cornixt
1243753.  Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:41 pm Reply with quote

Certain radio station still play albums in their entirety (complete with the minutes of silence before the hidden track) in evening spots. Always wondered how many people taped these.

 
bobwilson
1243919.  Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:34 pm Reply with quote

I’ll keep this as brief as possible – it’s a response to GuyBarry’s and Dr Bob’s posts which were responding to my post.

My point is that the BBC exists as a Public Service Broadcaster first and foremost.

Dr Bob writes

Quote:
We currently have a Conservative government that's clearly pretty anti-BBC…One of the sticks that governments in the past have used to beat the BBC has been lack of viewing figures.

There will always be people (and governments) who are anti-BBC. To my mind, there are two alternative strategies to be adopted in response. One is to gain viewing figures by mimicking commercial channels (in which case, as has been shown, the rottweilers will berate the BBC for paying exhorbitant salaries). An alternative strategy would be to present niche programmes which simply would not exist in the commercial world.

It’s almost impossible (for me at least) to find a convincing argument to defend excessive salaries funded from public money, particularly when there are private individuals who are willing to dig into their own pockets; by contrast, it’s incredibly easy to find a convincing argument to defend the use of public money to service the desires of a niche audience
Quote:

You seem to disagree with Lord Reith. His values were famously to educate, inform, and entertain. The three strands being equally important.


I don’t disagree with Lord Reith at all – the three strands ARE equally important. But they are equally important in every programme – they can’t be divorced from each other.

Quote:
If you insist that successful shows should be handed over to commercial channels, then you're essentially removing millions of pounds from the BBC's funding and handing it freely to a bunch of stock market investors.


You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not suggesting successful shows should be “handed over” – they should be sold at a fair market price.

And the BBC DOES have a guaranteed income – I’m not saying it hasn’t been reduced, but it is, nonetheless, guaranteed an income. That isn’t true for commercial channels.

GuyBarry writes

Quote:
Remember that the BBC has to justify the universal licence fee by delivering mass-audience programmes as well as "niche" ones.


No it doesn’t. It has to justify its’ universal licence fee in the same way that government (both local and national) has to justify taxes – by delivering a service. My local council doesn’t provide a taxi service, or pizza delivery at 3AM, for the perfecly good reason that there are private individuals who are willing to offer these on a commercial basis. The local council DOES provide me with the service of (for example) Trading Standards officers, street sweeping, etc. The latter in particular is a “mass-audience” service.

Quote:
Would you really close down the BBC's comedy, drama, sport, music and children's operations - or at least tell them they couldn't make programmes that weren't in some way "educational" or "informative"?


No, I wouldn’t close down any of those strands – but I would expect most programmes to fulfil at least two of the three criteria.

Quote:
Oh, you mean like happened with The Great British Bake-Off?


Yes, I mean exactly like that. What exactly is the educational/informational value of the GBBO?
Quote:

Why can't they develop their own formats?


a) they do develop their own formats
b) the BBC may develop a format – but once it’s proven it has commercial worth, sell it to a channel that’s willing to pay for it

Actually, cookery programmes (and property programmes, and virtual car-boot sale programmes) are all formats that both dominate the BBC schedules and no longer should be on the BBC schedules.

Quote:
The big advantage that the BBC has is that it doesn't need to worry about upsetting advertisers. It can persevere with a format that isn't initially successful, and give it time to mature. I think Only Fools and Horses didn't really take off until its third series. If it had been an ITV show, it would probably have been cancelled. (Have you noticed that in all those lists of "best-ever sitcoms", the BBC invariably sweeps the board?)


I agree with you entirely here – and in fact, that’s exactly my point. Assuming you’re correct about OFAH – that’s exactly what the BBC should be doing. That is to say, when adopting entertainment formats that would not be commercially successful but are servicing the needs of a segment of the population, to stick with them.

As with “I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue” – the educational value is in informing the rest of us that there are other forms of humour beyond the mainstream.

And finally

Quote:
Chris Evans isn't exactly to my taste either, but you've got to agree that there's an audience for him at the BBC. If he moved from Radio 2, what station would he go to?


I don’t care where he goes – Outer Mongolia FM? It’s not the job of the BBC (or licence payers) to provide a sinecure for Chris Evans. I suspect that Virgin Media, or Sky would snap him up

 
Jenny
1243974.  Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:06 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
What exactly is the educational/informational value of the GBBO? (and)... cookery programmes (and property programmes, and virtual car-boot sale programmes)


I can't answer for anybody else, but I find all those programmes educational and informative. I've learned a lot about baking techniques from GBBO, which is useful for me as I like to bake and my family benefit from the results. As a landlord and somebody interested in property I have also learned interesting things about property management from various property programmes. I also enjoy antiques and thrift shops and flea markets, so the programmes that talk about those are also educational and informative to me.

Educational and informative doesn't mean they have to be dull lecture-type programmes. The contest element is not for me the most interesting part of those programmes, but it's harmless and entertaining, which is the third strand you seem to discount unless it's your particular preferred form of entertainment.

 
dr.bob
1243979.  Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:54 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
by contrast, it’s incredibly easy to find a convincing argument to defend the use of public money to service the desires of a niche audience


Whilst those arguments might be convincing to you, I would suggest that they would be entirely unconvincing to a government that was hell bent on destroying the BBC. Maybe that's irrelevant, since a government hell bent on destroying the BBC would find any argument unconvincing. But we needn't worry because the Great British Public wouldn't allow them to destroy the BBC, right?

Sadly, if the BBC ended up making nothing but niche programming, it would be trivially simple for a government that was hell bent on destroying the BBC to whip up public opinion against them by getting the Dail Wail to run endless stories about how hard-working people's money was being wasted on documentaries about 19th century ballet dancers that nobody was really interested in.

bobwilson wrote:
I don’t disagree with Lord Reith at all – the three strands ARE equally important. But they are equally important in every programme – they can’t be divorced from each other.


This is silly. The news is informative and educational. It shouldn't be entertainment.

Whilst the BBC has a duty to inform, educate, and entertain, it doesn't have a duty to constantly do all three on every single programme.

bobwilson wrote:
You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not suggesting successful shows should be “handed over” – they should be sold at a fair market price.


Doctor Who has earned the BBC hundreds of millions over the past 12 years. If they sold it off, should they have asked for a price that would ensure they received the same amount of money? I find that unlikely. Even Bake Off only sold for £75million, and pretty much everyone at the time said that Channel 4 overpaid for that.

bobwilson wrote:
And the BBC DOES have a guaranteed income – I’m not saying it hasn’t been reduced, but it is, nonetheless, guaranteed an income.


The BBC receives an income for as long as the government decides it should. While public opinion is behind the BBC, this is unlikely to disappear completely. If public opinion were to shift, there are plenty of politicians who would be happy to see the BBC's income reduced to zero.

bobwilson wrote:
As with “I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue” – the educational value is in informing the rest of us that there are other forms of humour beyond the mainstream.


That's a bit of a reach. If you're allowed to say that, then I can claim that Strictly is educational because it informs the rest of us about different styles of dance that we might not have been aware of before.

And Jenny has already pointed out how educational Bake Off is.

 
GuyBarry
1244011.  Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:59 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

bobwilson wrote:
I don’t disagree with Lord Reith at all – the three strands ARE equally important. But they are equally important in every programme – they can’t be divorced from each other.


This is silly. The news is informative and educational. It shouldn't be entertainment.

Whilst the BBC has a duty to inform, educate, and entertain, it doesn't have a duty to constantly do all three on every single programme.


I agree with the point you're making, but I wouldn't call the news "educational". Its primary function is to inform audiences of current events. News bulletins may explain the background to stories if necessary, but they're not really there to tell viewers and listeners about how the world works - there are other factual programmes that do that job.

I'd be hard pressed to think of any single programme that has all three of "inform, educate and entertain" in its remit. Maybe The Museum of Curiosity?

Quote:
bobwilson wrote:
As with “I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue” – the educational value is in informing the rest of us that there are other forms of humour beyond the mainstream.


That's a bit of a reach. If you're allowed to say that, then I can claim that Strictly is educational because it informs the rest of us about different styles of dance that we might not have been aware of before.


Of course, ISIHAC has taught me the rules of Mornington Crescent :-)

 
crissdee
1244016.  Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:07 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:

I'd be hard pressed to think of any single programme that has all three of "inform, educate and entertain" in its remit.



Errrmmm.... QI?

 
GuyBarry
1244028.  Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:43 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:

I'd be hard pressed to think of any single programme that has all three of "inform, educate and entertain" in its remit.



Errrmmm.... QI?


Never heard of it :-)

Pointless might be another example from television... but thinking about radio again, I'm going to nominate Mark Steel's In Town. I've learned so much from that programme while simultaneously laughing my socks off. Brilliant.

 
PDR
1244035.  Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:15 pm Reply with quote

There are plenty of others on Radio 4 - I would include Woman's Hour, More or Less and the PM program (even if we ignore the Commander's other projects to avoid accusations of sycophancy).

PDR

 
dr.bob
1244085.  Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:50 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
I agree with the point you're making, but I wouldn't call the news "educational". Its primary function is to inform audiences of current events. News bulletins may explain the background to stories if necessary, but they're not really there to tell viewers and listeners about how the world works - there are other factual programmes that do that job.


There are certainly other factual programmes that do that job, arguably much better than the news ever can. However I do see, particularly with science news items, that the reporter will go into a bit of the detail of the story to explain the underlying science behind it (what you were referring to as "the background to the story" I guess). I reckon that definitely counts as "educational".

 
GuyBarry
1244086.  Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:07 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
However I do see, particularly with science news items, that the reporter will go into a bit of the detail of the story to explain the underlying science behind it (what you were referring to as "the background to the story" I guess). I reckon that definitely counts as "educational".


I know, because the BBC assumes that its viewers are ignorant about science, and need to have such matters explained to them in simple terms. Funnily enough, the same doesn't seem to apply to politics or economics.

 
dr.bob
1244103.  Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:11 am Reply with quote

I dunno. I occasionally see economics stories explained in detail when the reporter highlights how a change in one area will have unexpected repercussions in another area. This has been especially noticeable in the wake of the Brexit vote, e.g. having reporters explain that getting our EU subs back won't count for shit if the economy shrinks enough that we end up out of pocket anyway.

 
L on earth
1244111.  Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:46 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
I dunno. I occasionally see economics stories explained in detail when the reporter highlights how a change in one area will have unexpected repercussions in another area.


I think there's also a fair amount of explanation for most of the political stories. And if the BBC coverage of election night is anything to go by, I can't help but feel that they don't rate the viewers' baseline understanding particularly highly.

 

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group