Well, the the announcement tomorrow of all BBC presenters pay above £150,000 it will be interesting to see how many and how highly news presenters feature on the list. It will no doubt provide interesting reading to examine where different BBC presenters sit in the BBC pile and I imagine there could well be quite a few colleagues unhappy in the BBC sitting next to someone that is paid multiples of what they earn.
My guess is the 3 highest paid in News and Current Affairs will be:
-Andrew Neil
-Andrew Marr
-John Simpson
Last edited by Live at five with Jeremy on 18 July 2017 9:07pm
All it's going to lead to is people moaning about why somebody who they don't like is being paid so much of "their" money, even though a portion of those people aren't even paying their licence fee.
I also don't see many positives in publishing the list but it will be intriguing to see who sits where. For instance, it would seem pretty unfair to see Nick Robinson being paid more than Mishal Hussein for working on the same programme. Or to see if some of the foreign corr's make the list. I for one will be digesting it over my breakfast...with perhaps some envy!
AS
AlexS
The rumours have normally been that Fiona Bruce is the highest paid person in News. According to some guardian article there are around 30 people in News and Current affairs affected by this release.
Surely Huw Edwards is the BBC's number one, and surely revealing their individual salaries is a gross invasion of privacy.
The BBC is a public body so the salaries of senior staff should be published for reasons of transparency. I work for a university and it's no different - the pay of senior staff is published for all to see.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. If for nothing else than it might make organisations think twice about grossly overpaying senior staff using public money.
I also don't see many positives in publishing the list but it will be intriguing to see who sits where. For instance, it would seem pretty unfair to see Nick Robinson being paid more than Mishal Hussein for working on the same programme. Or to see if some of the foreign corr's make the list. I for one will be digesting it over my breakfast...with perhaps some envy!
But its not just a persons physical work that adds value. Things like an individuals profile, contacts and prior experience all add additional value for the corporation so it is not unreasonable that these things are compensated.
it is assumed to be Gary Lineker and Graham Norton who will be at the top and be the 'faces' of the news stories in the press. I can see Gary getting a lot of stick considering how vocal he his about various matters on social media.
A lot of stars on the entertainment side of things don't actually work for the BBC so I assume none of those will be included and it will be heavily weighted towards news, sport and Radio 2.
I assume nobody on the news will be on air reporting about their own news. Good job Huw Edwards is on holiday.
it is assumed to be Gary Lineker and Graham Norton who will be at the top and be the 'faces' of the news stories in the press. I can see Gary getting a lot of stick considering how vocal he his about various matters on social media.
I assume nobody on the news will be on air reporting about their own news. Good job Huw Edwards is on holiday.
Huw seems to be filming a BBC Wales documentary rather than on holiday (according to his Twitter feed), and from some rumours I have seen in previous months it may be that virtually the whole BBC1 News team will be included in the list. I imagine that the story will be reported on by Amol Rajan who I would hope is on nothing close to £150,000.
Surely Huw Edwards is the BBC's number one, and surely revealing their individual salaries is a gross invasion of privacy.
The BBC is a public body so the salaries of senior staff should be published for reasons of transparency. I work for a university and it's no different - the pay of senior staff is published for all to see.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. If for nothing else than it might make organisations think twice about grossly overpaying senior staff using public money.
The difference is with councils, universities etc. comparable info is available. These figures are, to an extent, being published out of context.
It is absolutely wrong to name people that are on a particular salary. For one, advertising one's financial position exposes them to the serious threat of organised crime. And some might scoff that it's far fetched but it is a genuine problem, which is one of the reasons people are allowed to opt out of publicity if they win the lottery.
Simply saying "X amount of people get paid over £150,000" should suffice.