video: proof of BBCs dramatic cuts...!! [Archive]

SymphonicX

10-Sep-2009, 11:50 PM

MinionZombie

11-Sep-2009, 11:05 AM

Oh yeah I saw this yesterday, damn dude - learn when to take a breath. :eek::D:p:eek:

...

Speaking of the BBC - I think it's disgusting for a publicly funded body, that has been more than happy to revel in poking fun at, and reporting on, duck islands and phantom mortgages, refuses to reveal who gets paid what at the BBC.

It's our bloody money, and they pay their crowd far too much. The Prime Minister gets just shy of £200,000 and he's got a shite job ... the controller of the BBC gets somewhere near £900,000 a year ... I mean come-the-fuck-on.

Better stop or I'll get into a right old rant...

darth los

11-Sep-2009, 07:01 PM

Oh yeah I saw this yesterday, damn dude - learn when to take a breath. :eek::D:p:eek:

...

Speaking of the BBC - I think it's disgusting for a publicly funded body, that has been more than happy to revel in poking fun at, and reporting on, duck islands and phantom mortgages, refuses to reveal who gets paid what at the BBC.

It's our bloody money, and they pay their crowd far too much. The Prime Minister gets just shy of £200,000 and he's got a shite job ... the controller of the BBC gets somewhere near £900,000 a year ... I mean come-the-fuck-on.

Better stop or I'll get into a right old rant...

The fact that the P.M. has to stand in front of parliment every week and get abused alone should net him a higher salary than that.

Let's just say that most american politicians would run out of the room crying.

:cool:

SymphonicX

11-Sep-2009, 07:05 PM

The idea behind it is they won't publish their "talent"'s wage on there because their commercially funded competitors will simply outbid them.

And staff are mainly on contract, most production positions have been made redundant in favour of contracting and freelancing...

I can totally see the public's right to know, but some sensitivity needs to be excersised due to the very thin line that the BBC exists on - that between a public service and a workable business model - too much information out there can be damaging - but clear guidelines need to be set out to stop a shroud of secrecy over earnings...its not right, I wouldn't have the foggiest clue but the BBC has a mandate to progress and offer the public services which competitors haven't...and if everyone jumps ship then we'll be even more pissed...

MinionZombie

12-Sep-2009, 11:05 AM

Quite frankly, if people think the BBC is so great - they'll work there because of that - folk like Ross get paid far too much, they're simply not worth it (I can't stand Jonathon Ross by the way, it's the same one smutty gag repeated over and over, and his film reviewing skills are lacking - get Mark Kermode onto Film 2009 instead! His "Uncut" blog, and 5 Live Reviews are great!)

I don't like this air of 'public service broadcaster when it suits' that seems to come from the BBC. They force you to cough up money regardless of whether you actually watch their shows or not - in the form of the license fee - which keeps going up in price regardless of whether there is inflation or not at that time.

As it's publicly funded, they should tell us - those who subsidise the BBC, allowing them to make the programmes that they then go off and flog world-wide on telly, DVDs, merchandise and in terms of selling the formats - exactly what these people are getting paid.

If they're a private enterprise with no public funding, I couldn't give a stuff what they're paying their talent, but when it's our money funding it, then I bloody well want to know. MPs - funded by the tax payer - now have to put up all their expenses online, and you can find their salaries easily - why not the BBC? :rockbrow:

The license fee is out-of-date, and most definitely needs cutting - although the suggestion of "we might cut £3.50 off the fee" is a fucking insult - so instead of £142.50 a year as it is now, that would make it £139 - oh gee, thanks. :rolleyes::rant::mad:

If the likes of Ross would then want to sod off to other channels, well good riddance, they can all go and find work elsewhere and see if those channels will want them or not. Maybe then the BBC could find, I duno, NEW people to present things, rather than digging out the same decaying fossils who are long since past their sell-by date.

The BBC does some great stuff (like Top Gear, or Planet Earth, for example), but there's seriously far too much bullshit going on in there, not to mention the inherent political bias within the organisation - the fact that there were a myriad of empty champagne bottles lining the corridors the night after the 1997 general election says it all. :rockbrow:

*sigh*

I'm all kinds of fucked off this morning...

SymphonicX

12-Sep-2009, 03:59 PM

Quite frankly, if people think the BBC is so great - they'll work there because of that - folk like Ross get paid far too much, they're simply not worth it (I can't stand Jonathon Ross by the way, it's the same one smutty gag repeated over and over, and his film reviewing skills are lacking - get Mark Kermode onto Film 2009 instead! His "Uncut" blog, and 5 Live Reviews are great!)

I don't like this air of 'public service broadcaster when it suits' that seems to come from the BBC. They force you to cough up money regardless of whether you actually watch their shows or not - in the form of the license fee - which keeps going up in price regardless of whether there is inflation or not at that time.

As it's publicly funded, they should tell us - those who subsidise the BBC, allowing them to make the programmes that they then go off and flog world-wide on telly, DVDs, merchandise and in terms of selling the formats - exactly what these people are getting paid.

If they're a private enterprise with no public funding, I couldn't give a stuff what they're paying their talent, but when it's our money funding it, then I bloody well want to know. MPs - funded by the tax payer - now have to put up all their expenses online, and you can find their salaries easily - why not the BBC? :rockbrow:

The license fee is out-of-date, and most definitely needs cutting - although the suggestion of "we might cut £3.50 off the fee" is a fucking insult - so instead of £142.50 a year as it is now, that would make it £139 - oh gee, thanks. :rolleyes::rant::mad:

If the likes of Ross would then want to sod off to other channels, well good riddance, they can all go and find work elsewhere and see if those channels will want them or not. Maybe then the BBC could find, I duno, NEW people to present things, rather than digging out the same decaying fossils who are long since past their sell-by date.

The BBC does some great stuff (like Top Gear, or Planet Earth, for example), but there's seriously far too much bullshit going on in there, not to mention the inherent political bias within the organisation - the fact that there were a myriad of empty champagne bottles lining the corridors the night after the 1997 general election says it all. :rockbrow:

*sigh*

I'm all kinds of fucked off this morning...

I think its a bit short sighted to say "if they think the BBC is so great, they'll work there because of that..." well your average millionaire might - but from the ground up people will walk at the first sign of a better offer. Money is the driving incentive, even for publicly funded BBC.

Think in terms of the NHS...the good doctors/scientists get snapped up by private health care/pharmaceutical companies and the NHS is left to suffer...There's a very obvious incentive scheme running in the whole thing.

Your response is unfortunately justified but emotional and unmeasured...People like Ross are indeed paid too much - but he has, whether you like him or not, driven ratings up for the Beeb for years, increasing the belief the the BBC is committed to good TV (again, whether you like it or not...) and therefore they need to keep him there, propogating that belief system, and pay him what they think is an appropriate wage. Unfortunately it's the commercially driven rivals that can come along and trump that wage any time they start to see a profit...paying ridiculous rates for freelancers and this makes the Beeb a less appealing place to be, if they don't do something similar..!!

The Beeb has a lot to contend with in terms of competition - this is why certain "talent" have been told that if they work on any other channel, they'll never work for the BBC again. They have less and less rights to protect their interests whilst the corporations that they're in direct competition with can poach shows, formats, talent and staff at the snap of a finger.

However despite what I say I do concur that the Beeb is definitely STALE! They DO need to get rid of Ross, they do need to rethink the whole licence structure and they certainly need to be more transparent and honest about where my fucking money is going!! But a sense of perspective needs to remain here - the very fact that we have a dedicated service that isn't commercially driven is a priviledge that we need to get behind - it needs an almost total overhaul but I think simply exposing it and driving it into the ground for the sake of it is a missed opportunity for something great.

MinionZombie

12-Sep-2009, 05:00 PM

If it sorts itself out, like you said, then maybe it's something to get behind. Until then, it's a producer of some good/great content, and a hell of a lot of shit and hypocrisy, double standards, partisanship, and lack of direction.

Interestingly though, there's been a lot of controversy recently about the BBC's monopoly over certain things, such as the news media, and it's online resources.

The BBC, like anything public sector related in this country, is too bloated and needs a significant diet.

Ricky Gervais himself has commented about the amount of manager types (surprise surprise) who sit there with barely anything to say, just enough to vaguely justify their salary - these aren't creative people, just useless middle managers looking to hang on to their jobs and salary.

But equally, there are plenty of production companies out there in the UK who are the same - filled with managers, and not enough fresh, new blood coming through from the bottom up. The sort of production companies who always mention where the funding came from FIRST, rather than anything about the project itself.

The sorts of production companies that just swirl around in an endless cycle of securing funding to make stuff they never bother releasing, or to make 'documentaries' that are dry, stale and won't get shown anywhere either.

There are those kind of people in the BBC, and they need rooting out and chucking away. The pay scheme there needs fixing too, it's bizarre that the Director gets paid damn near £900,000 a year, meanwhile the Prime Minister (who has a far more difficult, long-hours job than some arse running the BBC) gets less than £200,000 a year.

It's utterly bizarre.

I've never said that I want shot of the BBC, I agree with you, they're stale and in need of a super serious shake-up. Like the NHS, they've become a self-aggrandising relic of a time long since passed - they need to wake up and smell the 21st century and shape up to suit the present day.

Like this dim-witted "the NHS is awesome, end of" crap you hear from chatterers, the BBC is definitely not what it was when it was the only television in the land. We now have hundreds of commercially driven channels with adverts and sponsorship. The BBC is running under an archaic business model and it needs a massive boot up the arse so it can remain as a British tradition - something I'm all for, there too many traditions of our country being pissed all over (either from someone else, or from themselves).

Gah!

SymphonicX

13-Sep-2009, 07:59 AM

Middle management is always going to be a problem...There have been a lot of shall we say...sweeping changes....in certain organisations over the years and that'll continue - however I haven't a clue about the BBCs real management structure, but you do hear stories...

But yeah if you compare the highest earnings in the public sector - aren't the NHS's top dogs on a fair whack? - then the PM probably scores really low down...which is ironic...but the PM makes far more than 200k simply through the perks of the job, and the impending books and post service job (Blair is on 2m a year or something now...) So as for financial incentive - Brown knows he has it made even though he's made an arse of it.

But then the same is argued towards the BBC DG's job...

Also a bit of a problem is the need for independant media and with commercially driven incentives this breeds shite like "americas dumbest criminals"...as you say....

bah I gotta get brekkie....:p