Yet again, the BBC are bringing back an old comedy for "just one last" Christmas special. I have never seen To The Manor Born and have nothing against it, but it's just another sign of lacking in ideas.
What it highlights is the dearth of popular shows in the last two decades, particularly situation comedies.
There's going to be a short Doctor Who "skit" on this years CIN, in which the current (10th) Doctor meets up with the 5th Doctor (Peter Davison).
Given the "middle age spread" factor, Davison has clearly had to have his costume remade, rather than the slender original coming out of mothballs. Compare and contrast: then and now.
Bit harsh on Davison, as he's been playing the 'gone to seed' King Arthur in Spamalot.
You've caught me in the middle of changing my last post- and aren't you mistaking power for responsibility ?
Hutton ? It was the DG who went and the Deputy DG, not the Board, as it was.
No it wasn't. The Chairman of the Board of Governors - Gavyn Davies resigned over Hutton, alongside Greg Dyke who was forced out by the rest of the Governors
The Deputy DG, Mark Byford (who made the grovelling apology once he took over from Dyke) is still at the BBC
As for power and responsibilty.... one comes with the other surely. A manager has power over what he is responsible for. Coming back to the original point, power and responsibilty are what people earn their money for.
You're right about Gavyn Davies- bad slip by me there, for which I apologise.
But as for responsiblity going with power- they don't necessarily follow. (See my comments on page 6 about the BBC Trust.)
With a privileged collective, there's often the impression of responsibility and the figurehead may go (to equally well paid employment) if there's been a major problem, but the rest of the collective will stay in place, at least, in the case of the BBC Board/Trust, until their term of office ends (when those people get new, equally well paid employment). They are replaced by other privileged people.
People being paid according to the amount of responsibility they have is nonsense- that's a lie perpetuated by managers. People get paid in accordance with factors such as market forces, the hierarchical system and privilege. 'Earning' doesn't come into it. It's about getting what you can and being paid more than those 'below' you.
(I believe Gavyn Davies is doing very well these days.)
You've caught me in the middle of changing my last post- and aren't you mistaking power for responsibility ?
Hutton ? It was the DG who went and the Deputy DG, not the Board, as it was.
It's a bit different being a Trust, but not much.
A Trust is liable if the organisation gets in to financial difficulty, but with a guaranteed £3.5 billion income per year and the checks by media (and government, ultimately), it's not going to happen.
Also though, MediaGuardian told us yesterday how much members of the BBC Trust were being paid for a two-day week! Ridiculous - all they do is rubber stamp the ideas of the management.
They're like the board of Directors of any company, they aren't full time. Pay isn't just linked to the number of hours you work, it's the responsibility the job holds that you get paid for.
Someone at the bottom of the hierarchy has responsiility just for themselves, those at the top are responsible for the jobs, assets and the budget for the whole organisation.
The trust don't just 'rubber stamp' they have big powers of decision making
No, they don't just 'rubber stamp', they have to justify their existence. There's probably now something (else perhaps ?) in the BBC's strategy that isn't useful or necessary.
(Of course, they (probably) asked some good questions, too.)
But being a member of the BBC Trust carries does not carry a great deal of responsibility.
If they make any sort of questionable decision, the media tells them about it and the Trust then has the chance to change that decision- it usually gets modified- soon afterwards.
A long-standing institution like the BBC should be reassessed every decade or so.
It's a shame that it has to happen due to (relative) cuts, but even the few ideas on this thread show just how wasteful BBC managers have been in the recent past.
They'll be mindful of that factor, however, and won't make too many changes that cause past decisions to be questioned.
Seriously, sometimes cartels are necessary for the good of public service. If Barry Norman knew he wouldn't have been paid any more for defecting to Sky, would he have done it?
But if it's illegal, you can't do it.
The BBC could cap salaries and some programme-makers might 'follow', but Sky wouldn't.
As for Barry Norman, I thought he was tired of having the Film programme shunted around the schedules, sometimes finishing after midnight or was that just an excuse to go after one last big payday, like a certain retiring talkshow host- allegedly.
The comments on Teletext p326 have highlighted three main gripes - the planned increase in repeats, the fact that management do not appear to be affected by the proposed cuts and, above all, the inflated salaries of certain BBC Talent, Jonathan Ross in particular. The BBC argues the latter's fee is necessary to avoid him defecting to the commercial sector yet is nowhere near what he might be paid over on ITV or Sky. Well there's a solution - industry-wide standard fees for all presenters and actors, which would give presenters an incentive to stay loyal and remove any reasons to "jump ship".
Aren't cartels illegal in the EU ?
The BBC should have offered Jonathan Ross a lot, lot less or let him go.
