BBC Broadcast sold to CBS

Not as large as the Central South patch which stretches from Milton Keynes to Abergavenny!



Yet the BBC is willing to pay some newscasters in excess of £500,000 per year. Perhaps the BBC should reassess its priorities.

Not sure what your point is - don't see how the amount an individual is paid is relevant to the siting of a BBC region.

If you want to discuss remuneration and market forces sensibly (and remember that at least one ITV1 news presenter is paid significantly more than £500,000 per year - nearer £750,000 AIUI...) then another thread no doubt already exists. All I'll say is that the BBC has to pay market rates (or as near to them as it can manage...) for most of its staff - and also for its equipment. Broadcasting is an expensive business.

(It is very easy to get jealous when you hear of someone earning a lot of money for what seems a simple job - however if you live in a capitalist society "the market will decide"...)

Exactly. In the days of Richard Baker and Jan Leeming, newscasters didn't get much more than the cameramen. So why not now?

Because the world doesn't stand still... Surely it is equally valid to ask why camera operators aren't also earning £500,000 p.a.? (I'm joking - a bit...)

The point is that the BBC don't chose how much they pay their employees in isolation - there is a wider market that operates.

BBC camera operators and commercial / freelance TV camera operators are paid (roughly - often very roughly) in the same ball park when it comes to salaries (Freelancers may earn significantly more...) Similarly News presenters operate in a wider market - and BBC and commercial / freelance presenters again are paid on a similar level...

To look back on the Leeming/Baker days is interesting - but ultimately irrelevant nostalgia - nice as it may be.

In those days they had a choice - BBC or ITN or nothing. You can't compare the 1970's with the 2005. Everything has changed - the best presenters can take their services to lots of diffrent broadcasters... all of whom want them and are willing to pay anything to get them

My point is that the wage some newscasters and journalists receive is utterly disproportionate to their work.

The competitiveness of the broadcasting industry has simply caused the salaries of newscasters to go into a state of positive feedback. This should not be allowed to continue; most nurses receive around £20,000 a year. Why should some newsreaders receive nearly 25x that amount simply for writing scripts and then reciting them from an autocue? It is absurd and unjust.

These positive feedback systems can be stopped. One example of such a case was Thatcher's confrontation of the unions when she came to power. Her efforts to stop the process of "union members demand higher wages/better conditions or else union strikes >>> union members receive higher wages/better working conditions" initially worsened the situation, but her efforts did eventually succeed in stopping the positive feedback.

Similarly, if the BBC took a stance to dramatically lower the wages of newscasters and journalists, it would undoubtedly lose staff, but it is a prominent enough organisation that it would set a precedent and enable other competing organisations to do the same. Even if other companies did not reciprocate, and the BBC became the lowest paying major broadcaster, it would still attract talented individuals because of its reputation.

Another consideration is that journalists and newscasters should be motivated to do their job because of an interest in it, and not only because of a lucrative deal. Quite honestly, if certain journalists and newscasters have to be offered enormous sums of cash and other offers just to remain in their job, then those individuals aren't really motivated by a love for truth and decent reportage, but merely by a selfish desire for individual economic gain.

So lowering wages would actually be beneficial; it would filter out journalists and newsreaders with only financial interests in their position, and hopefully set a precedent for other areas of the corporation and the media in general.

I think there is a wider point here. What happens, or what should happen, when the values of the 'free market' diverge from public opinion, overvaluing some and undervaluing others? Its not just nurses and newsreaders, it could be footballers and teachers, company directors and firemen, etc.