AS
AlexS
In many ways it may make more sense to keep the presenters on the list on air rather than attempt to get the lesser paid presenters (who may well be annoyed when they find out just how much less they are being paid) attempt to justify why their co-workers need to be paid significantly more than them. Much of the public will not accept a newsreader on less than £150,000 justifying that another newsreader needs to be paid over £150,000, especially if they prefer the delivery of the lesser paid presenter.
AS
AlexS
As a starting point 8 years ago Carrie Gracie was paid £92,000 for 3-4 mornings a week on the Newschannel.
SJ
I have a lot of sympathy with this position. Worth pointing out that they're only publishing in £50k bands, so not exact salaries. Might have made more sense to have variable bands proportional to the full salary, though, to avoid some of the pitfalls of comparisons of proportionally small differences in large salaries - say £50k bands up to £500k total,then £100k bands up to £1m, then maybe £200k bands.
Surely Huw Edwards is the BBC's number one, and surely revealing their individual salaries is a gross invasion of privacy.
I have a lot of sympathy with this position. Worth pointing out that they're only publishing in £50k bands, so not exact salaries. Might have made more sense to have variable bands proportional to the full salary, though, to avoid some of the pitfalls of comparisons of proportionally small differences in large salaries - say £50k bands up to £500k total,then £100k bands up to £1m, then maybe £200k bands.
WO
Or vice versa. What happens if Nick is paid less? Will you argue that?
it would seem pretty unfair to see Nick Robinson being paid more than Mishal Hussein for working on the same programme.
Or vice versa. What happens if Nick is paid less? Will you argue that?
HO
Or vice versa. What happens if Nick is paid less? Will you argue that?
I think the point is that staff on these programme - including the presenters themselves - might not know that they're being paid more or less than a colleague. Regardless of who it is or which way around, you can interpret these differences as person A being more valuable than person B to the corporation.
it would seem pretty unfair to see Nick Robinson being paid more than Mishal Hussein for working on the same programme.
Or vice versa. What happens if Nick is paid less? Will you argue that?
I think the point is that staff on these programme - including the presenters themselves - might not know that they're being paid more or less than a colleague. Regardless of who it is or which way around, you can interpret these differences as person A being more valuable than person B to the corporation.
WO
Or vice versa. What happens if Nick is paid less? Will you argue that?
I think the point is that staff on these programme - including the presenters themselves - might not know that they're being paid more or less than a colleague. Regardless of who it is or which way around, you can interpret these differences as person A being more valuable than person B to the corporation.
The point I was making was that 'Live at 5 with Jeremy' seemed to be ensuing that if Mishal is paid less, it's because 'she's a woman'. If it turned out to be the other way round, and Nick was paid less I wanted to see what excuses would be raised to justify it (which is what usually happens when women are paid more than men - we rarely hear 'that's sexist' - as if its some kind of victory) other than the fact 'he's a man'.
it would seem pretty unfair to see Nick Robinson being paid more than Mishal Hussein for working on the same programme.
Or vice versa. What happens if Nick is paid less? Will you argue that?
I think the point is that staff on these programme - including the presenters themselves - might not know that they're being paid more or less than a colleague. Regardless of who it is or which way around, you can interpret these differences as person A being more valuable than person B to the corporation.
The point I was making was that 'Live at 5 with Jeremy' seemed to be ensuing that if Mishal is paid less, it's because 'she's a woman'. If it turned out to be the other way round, and Nick was paid less I wanted to see what excuses would be raised to justify it (which is what usually happens when women are paid more than men - we rarely hear 'that's sexist' - as if its some kind of victory) other than the fact 'he's a man'.
DA
I don't think "allowed" is quite the right word. It's not by the good grace of Camelot, or whoever's running it these days. Winners have the right to opt out of having their name splashed about because it's nobody's business but their own.
Being highly-paid with public money is a bit different. And it's a bit far-fetched to think that someone might be waiting to hear exactly how much Graham Norton earns before deciding to turn over his gaffe.
which is one of the reasons people are allowed to opt out of publicity if they win the lottery.
I don't think "allowed" is quite the right word. It's not by the good grace of Camelot, or whoever's running it these days. Winners have the right to opt out of having their name splashed about because it's nobody's business but their own.
Being highly-paid with public money is a bit different. And it's a bit far-fetched to think that someone might be waiting to hear exactly how much Graham Norton earns before deciding to turn over his gaffe.
CI
I know these four things are true.
1. The pay level was negotiated.
2. The tabloid hacks will be all over this story, like a bad rash, or bird flu...
3. The nosey parkers of the world will absolutely love finding out.
4. It's none of our damn business what these people get paid, and I for one have absolutely no interest in this non-story.
I would bet that Tom Bradby is on a lot more than Huw Edwards.
I know these four things are true.
1. The pay level was negotiated.
2. The tabloid hacks will be all over this story, like a bad rash, or bird flu...
3. The nosey parkers of the world will absolutely love finding out.
4. It's none of our damn business what these people get paid, and I for one have absolutely no interest in this non-story.