The amount of coverage afforded to Kobe Bryant's death by BBC World is a good example of why a combined BBC World and BBC NC wouldn't work. It is obviously a huge story around the world but not one that particularly resonates in the UK, beyond a core fan base. By trying to reconcile two different audiences you would ultimately compromise the service delivered to both.
The amount of coverage afforded to Kobe Bryant's death by BBC World is a good example of why a combined BBC World and BBC NC wouldn't work. It is obviously a huge story around the world but not one that particularly resonates in the UK, beyond a core fan base. By trying to reconcile two different audiences you would ultimately compromise the service delivered to both.
To be fair, the news channel covered it extensively when it broke last night.
The leaks in advance are understandably causing some upset amongst staff:
To the BBC insider who’s leaking job cut details to the press: probably makes you feel important briefing hacks. What it should make you feel is an absolute twat. These r fine, hardworking colleagues with families. F... off and get a life.
Meanwhile Gary Lineker (BBC Salary £1.75M) has said the licence fee should be more voluntary. Ref https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51270012. I imagine some BBC staff (and management) might have a few thoughts about his latest comments.
Gary Lineker is probably the biggest problem the BBC has at the moment. When you look at his salary of around £1.7 million a year, he is the highest paid "celebrity" on the BBC and many have asked the question for what?
If Graham Norton's salary was £1.7 million and he was the highest paid star I would understand that perfectly, he is a huge draw, seems to work reasonably hard for his salary with the chat show on air for around 34 weeks of the year, his weekly radio show, Eurovision commentator (yes, I know, not at 40 hour working week, but this is TV not real life) internationally known (he has been appearing of many US talk shows recently including Late Show with Stephen Colbert) and I would be fine knowing he is the biggest paid, as I am sure ITV would offer him £5 million or more to jump ship.
Gary Lineker on the other hand ..... Match of the Day and some other bits of football and that is it really. He gets a whopping pay packet for very little work (it seems).
I remember Jay Leno saying in the states, Americans do not care if you are paid $25 million a year, as long as you are seen to be working for it, and Jay certainly did work for his salary, over 250 shows a year of the Tonight Show when he was at his peak in around 2000.
Gary Lineker's work does not justify his salary, and the only reason the BBC make him the highest paid star is that BT Sport and ITV would probably pay him a vast amount to leave, and he chose not to leave because of the BBC name and brand, but the hefty pay packet is also there.
So, it is a huge problem with the salaries now made public every year, and the inevitable cuts coming around the corner, a pure migraine for the next DG.
I remember Jay Leno saying in the states, Americans do not care if you are paid $25 million a year, as long as you are seen to be working for it, and Jay certainly did work for his salary, over 250 shows a year of the Tonight Show when he was at his peak in around 2000.
Worth mentioning Jay Leno reportedly took a 50% pay cut in 2012 slashing his rumored to $15 million in order to save the jobs of his staff. Apparently many staff who were with him through out were going to be let go. But at the same time he’s also said he lives on the money he makes touring the country (which at the time I didn’t realize was as often) and uses the money saved from the show to run his garage.
Gary Lineker is probably the biggest problem the BBC has at the moment. When you look at his salary of around £1.7 million a year, he is the highest paid "celebrity" on the BBC and many have asked the question for what?
If Graham Norton's salary was £1.7 million and he was the highest paid star I would understand that perfectly, he is a huge draw, seems to work reasonably hard for his salary with the chat show on air for around 34 weeks of the year, his weekly radio show, Eurovision commentator (yes, I know, not at 40 hour working week, but this is TV not real life) internationally known (he has been appearing of many US talk shows recently including Late Show with Stephen Colbert) and I would be fine knowing he is the biggest paid, as I am sure ITV would offer him £5 million or more to jump ship.
Gary Lineker on the other hand ..... Match of the Day and some other bits of football and that is it really. He gets a whopping pay packet for very little work (it seems).
.
As has been seen in recent cases, there are also huge wage disproportionates within BBC News itself. Between Network, Channel, World. Male and female. Domestic and international staff. Etc etc.
All things considered, a leveling exercise probably won’t yield any savings, and would possibly serve to increase costs instead. Removing the higher paid “Linekers of News” is the only solution. (Or the same agreeing to significant pay cuts).
Edit: Before anyone replies, I know there is no one within the BBC News organisation who earns the same as Lineker and Norton. I’m merely highlighting the disproportionate levels within the news organization itself.
Last edited by JamesWorldNews on 28 January 2020 4:47am
The thing with Linker is that people watch for the match coverage, not the host. Put any reasonably competent presenter on and you'll still get an audience.
That said, if he wasn't presenting he would likely be commanding the same kind of money as Alan Shearer as a pundit, so I guess there is some kind of value in being able to combine both roles.