MA
Well why don't they retrain as journalists.
Journalists per se are not well paid, it's the ones that are TV presenters. And let's examine why.
You have to be a bit 'special' to want to sit in front of millions of people, and present information to them.
That makes presenters rather rare. If you filter out the 99% of people who do want to, but are not articulate enough, have a suitable voice, and let's be blunt, look good enough on the screen, then you're down to very few.
Consequently those few can command relatively high wages.
92K is an obscene amount of money for essentially reading off an autocue 80% of the time. Doctors who save lives are on less than that.
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
Well why don't they retrain as journalists.
Journalists per se are not well paid, it's the ones that are TV presenters. And let's examine why.
You have to be a bit 'special' to want to sit in front of millions of people, and present information to them.
That makes presenters rather rare. If you filter out the 99% of people who do want to, but are not articulate enough, have a suitable voice, and let's be blunt, look good enough on the screen, then you're down to very few.
Consequently those few can command relatively high wages.
GM
nodnirG kraM
Consequently those few can command relatively high wages.
Or let Sky pay them that amount instead. Or ITV. Or Channel 4. Or Five. Or anyone else who fancies you on their set really.
SP
If the £1m Kaplinsky allegedly gets a year for five news is the going rate, I'd say the BBC have got themselves a bargain.
SN
Lets be frank, there are people who are paid far more. At Sky Eamonn was on £2m over 3 years, Dermot is on £1m over the amount of time, and I think Kay is on about £350,000 a year. £92k!? She's on a pittance, and needs a better agent!
As for Lord Foulkes, he is in my opinion, an odious individual. As someone who has been privileged enough to have lived in numerous countries and come from a nation whose history of free speech and freedom of press is not without blemish (Spain), I feel ashamed to have sat here and wasted two minutes of my life listening to him.
Journalists are not there to undermine anybody, least of all the elected representatives of our people who have a mandate to legislate. After all, what mandate does Carrie Gracie have? Apart from the £92k-worth in her pocket. Journalists must scrutinise those in power, they must test them and question them to ensure that their own convictions are well grounded and well meaning, to enable the public to judge them. Journalists must educate the people, in as good a manner as they can possibly do so, on government policy and actions. Furthermore, journos must represent the people.
'Although we are not elected, there is no reason why we should not, and every reason why we should, be accountable.'
A little quote from his website. Accountable, that is, to the people, through the rigorous and balanced questioning of the journalists. Unless you're Carrie Gracie.
Sadly, the flippant manner in which Lord Foulkes answered Carrie's questions, with a simple 'well, you get paid more than me (whine, whine, whine)...' just shows how detached those in parliament have become and how casually they treat the understandable views of a people who can no longer trust their politicians in the absence of any form of conviction politics.
Carrie was not at fault, and in my opinion should have been more forceful in her approach, she only showed Lord Foulkes up to be the seething lump of hypocrisy that he really is.
As for Lord Foulkes, he is in my opinion, an odious individual. As someone who has been privileged enough to have lived in numerous countries and come from a nation whose history of free speech and freedom of press is not without blemish (Spain), I feel ashamed to have sat here and wasted two minutes of my life listening to him.
Journalists are not there to undermine anybody, least of all the elected representatives of our people who have a mandate to legislate. After all, what mandate does Carrie Gracie have? Apart from the £92k-worth in her pocket. Journalists must scrutinise those in power, they must test them and question them to ensure that their own convictions are well grounded and well meaning, to enable the public to judge them. Journalists must educate the people, in as good a manner as they can possibly do so, on government policy and actions. Furthermore, journos must represent the people.
'Although we are not elected, there is no reason why we should not, and every reason why we should, be accountable.'
A little quote from his website. Accountable, that is, to the people, through the rigorous and balanced questioning of the journalists. Unless you're Carrie Gracie.
Sadly, the flippant manner in which Lord Foulkes answered Carrie's questions, with a simple 'well, you get paid more than me (whine, whine, whine)...' just shows how detached those in parliament have become and how casually they treat the understandable views of a people who can no longer trust their politicians in the absence of any form of conviction politics.
Carrie was not at fault, and in my opinion should have been more forceful in her approach, she only showed Lord Foulkes up to be the seething lump of hypocrisy that he really is.
GR
At the end of the day I believe that the discussion was over the immoral use of expenses and public money, not how much MPs salaries are, so therefore a comment and stab at Carrie over her salary was unfair. As we all know journalists work in a highly competitive area of which they are on the majority skilled in journalistic background and if individuals believe they are paid too much then the argument could continue even further to other television and radio personalities salaries alongside footballers; but that was not the issue at hand so it was a very low comment.
KI
I think she handled it quite well although she was certainly adopting a 'hard' interview technique... compared to other presenters I don't think £92,000 is that much- considering she is one of the News Channel's regulars.
Go Carrie!
I think £92,000 is too much, they are far more educated and skill workers who get much less!
I think she handled it quite well although she was certainly adopting a 'hard' interview technique... compared to other presenters I don't think £92,000 is that much- considering she is one of the News Channel's regulars.
Go Carrie!
MA
That's right, but it's got nothing to do with skill and education these days (if ever).
I think £92,000 is too much, they are far more educated and skill workers who get much less!
That's right, but it's got nothing to do with skill and education these days (if ever).
GM
nodnirG kraM
Both sides put up a good fight, but neither seemed to come away the victor. Foulkes made some very good points: that the media is in a total frenzie at the moment and that most MPs are doing a very good job within the rules and with the bounds of ethics. Gracie did of course have the benefit of a director with overall control over who talks and who doesn't!