The Newsroom

Does Newswatch = Points of View?

The latest BBC sexism row (October 2019)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
MA
Markymark
Jon posted:
This issue here is, it’s unlikely anyone will really call this decision out. The left wing press will want to stick up for what it sees as their natural position on such issues and the right wing press will just use it as an excuse to beat the BBC. The likes of Vine himself won’t feel comfortable trying to justify the difference, as they’ll just be afraid of looking like they’re trying undermine female colleagues.


It's impossible in the 'entertainment industry' to reconcile market forces, audience popularity, and equality. Everybody ends up tieing themselves up in knots over it. Similar regarding the recent BAME issues with the back slapping awards ceremonies.
IT
itsrobert Founding member
Jon posted:
This issue here is, it’s unlikely anyone will really call this decision out. The left wing press will want to stick up for what it sees as their natural position on such issues and the right wing press will just use it as an excuse to beat the BBC. The likes of Vine himself won’t feel comfortable trying to justify the difference, as they’ll just be afraid of looking like they’re trying undermine female colleagues.


Sadly this seems to be the norm in modern society - unless you hold an opinion that is consistent with the accepted version, then you're either too afraid to speak, or, if you do, you're absolutely castigated for it.

Taking gender out of this completely, I do think this is an absolutely ridiculous decision. Newswatch is not POV. Simple as. To try and compare the two as equal programmes is ludicrous.
LL
London Lite Founding member
So much for Newswatch being a low budget show when they're going to go over with Ahmed's compensation.

Have to confess that I'm shocked about the ruling, but I don't blame Samira for going ahead with the tribunal.

IMHO, in this day and age, do we really need Newswatch, which itself is filler and Points of View? It's not like viewers don't have other avenues to complain about BBC content without the need to pay talent for 10-15 mins of output.
Newsroom and Lou Scannon gave kudos
JO
Jon
So much for Newswatch being a low budget show when they're going to go over with Ahmed's compensation.

Have to confess that I'm shocked about the ruling, but I don't blame Samira for going ahead with the tribunal.

IMHO, in this day and age, do we really need Newswatch, which itself is filler and Points of View? It's not like viewers don't have other avenues to complain about BBC content without the need to pay talent for 10-15 mins of output.

I think that’s a valid conversation. But isn’t really relevant to that rights and wrongs of this discussion.
CW
Charlie Wells Moderator
So much for Newswatch being a low budget show when they're going to go over with Ahmed's compensation.

Have to confess that I'm shocked about the ruling, but I don't blame Samira for going ahead with the tribunal.

I think the bigger problem is/was that some presenters were being paid too much for what they actually did (on and off screen). I wonder if any radio presenters will try to ask for pay in line with the big salaries Ken Bruce and Steve Wright currently earn. It'll be interesting to see if any other TV channels are affected by this ruling.
BR
Brekkie
Spinning it as sexism is just opportunism and IMO suggests the verdict itself is sexist. Had Raymond Snoddy bought the case it would likely have fallen at the first hurdle.

The completely wrong thing with tribunals is it isn't the case of innocent unless proven guilty. Basically rather than proving the BBC were sexist the BBC had to prove they weren't.
GI
ginnyfan
Worst decision ever.

Where will BBC get that 700.000 from??? Canceling another shift/slot on the News Channel? Good job Samira..... Rolling Eyes
JO
Jon
Worst decision ever.

Where will BBC get that 700.000 from??? Canceling another shift/slot on the News Channel? Good job Samira..... Rolling Eyes

It’s not £700,000 that’s the headache, it’s the wider implications and expenses the BBC will face which is the real issue.
LL
London Lite Founding member
Jon posted:
So much for Newswatch being a low budget show when they're going to go over with Ahmed's compensation.

Have to confess that I'm shocked about the ruling, but I don't blame Samira for going ahead with the tribunal.

IMHO, in this day and age, do we really need Newswatch, which itself is filler and Points of View? It's not like viewers don't have other avenues to complain about BBC content without the need to pay talent for 10-15 mins of output.

I think that’s a valid conversation. But isn’t really relevant to that rights and wrongs of this discussion.


But it is an important part of the conversation. They chose Samira Ahmed, a BAME feminist who didn't take any nonsense from the BBC regarding their pay policy regarding Newswatch. They could have chosen a presenter who wouldn't have rocked the boat and Newswatch would have carried on as cheap 10 minute filler with nobody caring or indeed watching, unless they're half asleep watching Breakfast on a Saturday morning.

Instead Ahmed raised the profile of Newswatch thanks to her tribunal and now have a format that has gone way over budget thanks to her justified actions. It's not just Ahmed who's in the money, other talent will now look at their contracts and believe they should have been paid more for producing cheap fodder.
AN
Andrew Founding member
Presumably Mark Chapman will now be expected to be on the same salary as Gary Lineker, as they both present one MOTD per week?

Jim and Becky at Breakfast on BBC Radio Local should get the same as Zoe Ball?
BR
Brekkie
Presumably Mark Chapman will now be expected to be on the same salary as Gary Lineker, as they both present one MOTD per week?

Kelly Somers for hosting the Women's Football Show is probably the more comparable comparison.


The BBC have reworded significant parts of their article now so I can't quote it but earlier it basically said the tribunal found that the BBC couldn't prove they weren't sexist (that is where the balance of proof lies within the tribunal system, rather than the claimant having to prove your guilt) and that the judges saw no evidence that the two programmes were different. (Any TV guide gives that evidence - for a start Newswatch won't be listed in most, and if so only as a segment of Breakfast). The BBC didn't help themselves with the "glint in their eye" nonsense either - and must say the ITV report throughout on the Evening News implied Jeremy Vine was still hosting Points of View.


Based on this nonsensical judgement though as the going rate for presenting a show on any BBC channel is £3000 per 15 minutes I guess anyone not on £12000 an hour can now put in a claim. That's the Breakfast presenters on £39k a day, just £3k more than any News Channel host on a three hour shift it seems.
WO
Worzel
I'm quite looking forward to this backfiring and the likes of Simon McCoy, Clive Myrie and Ben Brown demanding Fiona Bruce and Sophie Raworth's news salaries/rates and claiming gender discrimination because they don't get paid the same - because they also present bulletins on BBC One from time to time.

I really hope one of them has the guts to do it. We'll then see if the likes of Carrie Gracie and Samira Ahmed back them up. However if I was a betting man, they won't because - you know - sexism only ever works one way. Rolling Eyes

What a stupid decision and it'll put a nail in the coffin for Newswatch. However baring in mind Newswatch hasn't been properly Reith'd titles wise and the endboard still has an old knocked off BBC News Gill logo, I think the show's days are numbered anyway.
Last edited by Worzel on 10 January 2020 7:39pm - 3 times in total

Newer posts