View previous topic | View next topic

BBC pay

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

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.

 
CharliesDragon
1244116.  Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:23 am Reply with quote

I cannot speak for how much expalanation happens in the BBC news, since I don't watch them, but I'm generally in favour of people getting a bit of a deeper understanding than "Someone did something and someone else is angry about it," regardless of if it's an area they generally follow or are interested in. It might be grating to watch if you yourself feel they're explaining one and one is two, but locking people out of ever getting an understanding of it, unless they look up information about it themselves, which they in my opinion are unlikely to do because they find the topic boring and/or confusing because the news just assume they already have extensive knowledge of it, is not something that sounds wise to me.

As for niché programming, I feel the BBC (and other license-funded channels/networks) have the freedom to produce and air some niché programmes, but it cannot be their only focus. For one, it's more likely people will hear about niché programmes they might be interested in if they're already watching the channel, already watching a "for the masses" programme, but if they have the (not completely incorrect) image of the channel only airing things they don't give a rat's arse about it's less likely they'll give it a try even if they hear about something that might interest them.

That isn't just regarding niché topics, but also programming for minority ethnicities (like the Saami here in Norway) and for minorities like hard of hearing/deaf people. If it's well made and subtitled, there's no reason those programmes can't be enjoyed by other people as well.

 
GuyBarry
1269930.  Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:21 pm Reply with quote

Something of a bombshell. Carrie Gracie has resigned from her post as the BBC's China editor, citing pay differences with male colleagues. Her letter has been leaked to BuzzFeed News:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/a-top-bbc-journalist-has-quit-as-china-editor-and-accused?utm_term=.im9M6obOvY#.abow96PByd

 
tetsabb
1269953.  Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:30 pm Reply with quote

She has done some cracking reports from China.

 
GuyBarry
1269964.  Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:57 am Reply with quote

I'm currently listening to Radio 4's Today programme and it's very odd. She's presenting it while simultaneously being one of the leading stories. The story's featured prominently on the news bulletins but they're having to tiptoe around it for the rest of the programme. John Humphrys (her co-presenter) read out the story as part of the paper review at 6.45am, then explained that BBC impartiality rules didn't allow him to interview her, then asked her a question about it anyway. I'm surprised she was allowed to appear this morning.

She will be interviewed during Woman's Hour at 10am, apparently.

EDIT: Just heard the Woman's Hour interview. The BBC presenter Jane Garvey wasn't allowed to interview her because of impartiality rules, so they drafted in Jane Martinson from the Guardian instead. Must be very difficult for the BBC in these circumstances - at least they're not ducking the issue.

 
dr.bob
1270002.  Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:19 am Reply with quote

I'm a little confused by this story. Ms Gracie cited many problems with the management of the BBC resulting in unequal pay. She also stated that she had lost confidence in the BBC management. However, upon leaving her post as China editor, she stated that she is returning to her "former post in the TV newsroom where I expect to be paid equally."

I wonder what gives her that expectation, given everything else she's just said about the BBC in general.

 
Jenny
1270017.  Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:43 pm Reply with quote

Her letter refers to parts of the BBC where salaries are transparent so perhaps that is the case in the newsroom.

 
GuyBarry
1270025.  Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:11 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
Her letter refers to parts of the BBC where salaries are transparent so perhaps that is the case in the newsroom.


No - she was talking about senior management, where the BBC is required to disclose salaries above £150,000:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/

Newsroom staff would get significantly less than that.

 

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