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'.
No my point was not one about gender. The same applies if it is the other way around. Can you imagine how ackward it will be if two presenters doing exactly the same job are paid very different salaries? I think there could be a big fallout internally in the BBC over this.
I don't personally have an issue with this. I imagine it will create some tension amongst the staff at the BBC however. The releasing of salaries will hopefully give executives a kick up the backside in making sure men and women are paid equally if they are doing the same job.
I also feel some of the BBC's stars are paid far too much. If the really well paid 'BBC through and through' stars enjoyed working at the BBC that much, they should be happy to take a pay cut at a time when budget is apparently tight.
It's also interesting to think about what bad news will be 'buried' in the annual report by this. This is the first annual report with a decent amount of time of online BBC Three to report on. And it'll be embarrassing if news reach among young people remains as poor as recent years after a year of notable engagement of the young electorate more broadly.
There will be lots of stories in the press of someone earning 50k more than someone else then, when in reality it could be 1k more between someone on 199k and someone on 200k
If it is being revealed in 50K bands and the publication has been know about for quite some time then it's safe to assume there will be quite a few who are coincidentally just short of being in the next band up. I couldn't help wondering whether there was any link in this publication and Andrew Neil's decision to cut back on his work, as I seem to recall him commenting about the publication being 'uncomfortable for some' (or similar).
Personally I feel this publication won't do the BBC much good in the long term, as it's just another stick for them to be beaten with, and may undermine their ability to get & keep talent. Without comparisons of what rivals such as ITV & Sky pay for talent it's difficult for the public to compare and see whether they're getting good value for money. Incidentally will salaries for talent on indy programmes for the BBC have to be published? If not I can see that potentially being a loophole that might be used in time.
(On a side note I wonder if the government would be as open & transparent in revealing how much of tax payers money is spent on staff in Whitehall, without the need for FoI requests.)
((Edited to fix typo.))
Last edited by Charlie Wells on 19 July 2017 9:13am
Incidentally will salaries for talent on indy programmes for the BBC have to be published? If not I can see that potentially being a loophole that might be used in time.
No - Graham Norton's figure will only include work he does directly for the BBC (ie his Radio 2 show and Eurovision). The fee he gets for his BBC One show will not be included.
Yes not only is it useless information without comparison to rival broadcasters, it's also out of context without any mention of other costs involved. £150,000 is a decent salary of course but in the production of a TV programme its probably just a small part of the budget and others costs. Match of The Day is a good example, I imagine Gary Linekers pay is a lot less than the rights themselves let alone the staff required to make the programme.
The indie thing will confuse the issue too, although I wonder if Graham Nortons show was still made by a company he owned, would the cost of the programme be included rather than what he actually gets? That was always the complication with Jonathan Ross' pay, it was the cost of the programme made to his company
Whilst in a hypocritical way I will read the figures with some intrigue, I honestly dont see this move as in the BBCs interest and agree it is just another stick for the government to beat it with.
Already listening to Sky News this morning, this 'Gender Issue' was made which in my view at a presenter level is manufacturing sensitivities which I imagine aren't actually there. Inevitably, somewhere theres going to be a man in a similar role to a woman who may be in the next band up and there's going to be a furore over it. Where there is a woman whose paid more than a man however in similar circumstances I can't see the discourse heating up as much. (What men and women are played in operational roles may be a different story)
The fact of the matter is there will be many factors which determine a presenters pay. One speculates the reputation of that individual, to what extent the BBC are mindful in securing the services of that particular individual ahead of potential rivals, their agents negotiation skills and perhaps loyalty/How long they've been in a particular role. As this thread has discussed, there are also nuances in what is included in the figure with someone like Graham Norton earns. We're not finding out what someones contract exactly entails either which might explain a details. This may explain for instance why Nick Robinson is paid more than Mishal Hussain, if he is.
The BBC are using public sector money so some transparency is in order such as X number of presenters are in this pay bracket. This would be entirely sufficient. All publishing individuals salary is doing is harming the individual and the BBC. Lastly were inevitably going to have what we think of the person coming into it, so whatever Laura Kuensberg is paid I will likely think well shes one of the best in her field but whatever Chris Evans is paid Im going to think what a waste of money..
Lastly were inevitably going to have what we think of the person coming into it, so whatever Laura Kuensberg is paid I will likely think well shes one of the best in her field but whatever Chris Evans is paid Im going to think what a waste of money..
That's irrelevant as it's down to personal taste, and of course those who are highly thought of aren't necessarily those who bring in the greatest numbers. The above two personalities being a good example of that
:-(
A former member
It's radio peplow who get the most, jemrey vine and Ken Bruce which are shockers.
Yes not only is it useless information without comparison to rival broadcasters, it's also out of context without any mention of other costs involved. £150,000 is a decent salary of course but in the production of a TV programme its probably just a small part of the budget and others costs. Match of The Day is a good example, I imagine Gary Linekers pay is a lot less than the rights themselves let alone the staff required to make the programme.
The indie thing will confuse the issue too, although I wonder if Graham Nortons show was still made by a company he owned, would the cost of the programme be included rather than what he actually gets? That was always the complication with Jonathan Ross' pay, it was the cost of the programme made to his company
Interesting times ahead
"The sums will only include pay for work carried out directly for the BBC, not other production companies.
For example, Norton's will cover pay for his Radio 2 radio show and Eurovision, but not his chatshow which is produced by independent company, So Television."