[Closed] BBC News readers are paid £92k!!

She got pwned!

Nice money. I suspect a claim for a skivvy to empty horse dung into your moat might get turned down if you're a BBC news presenter.

hey i already posted this on the mp thread but yeah she was slapped down
license fee well spent ?!?!?!

Apologies kimbers, i didn't see it. But i think it deserves its own thread. I'm amazed they get that much. They don't even do proper journalism these days either.

I wonder if [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/frank_gardner.shtml ]Frank Gardener[/url]thinks that it's enough to get shot at for..?

She got pwned!

What exactly does this mean? Where does it derive from? looks like a bastardisation of porned and owned, neither of which makes any sense in this context.

I wonder if Frank Gardenerthinks that it's enough to get shot at for..?

I'd happily risk being shot (at those odds) for £92k. Thousands of servicemen do every day, for a lot less!

The going rate in a competitive market. What's the problem with that?

its an Americanism, hence retarded, and usually used by retards. Spot the theme.

I'd happily risk being shot (at those odds) for £92k

What are your skills CK? - I may have leads on a couple of openings for you.

The going rate in a competitive market.

Is it really?

Would it not be possible to employ an equally suitable person for that position for, say 50k?

The old boy has got a point and he seemed genuinely shocked at 92k!

license payers money going to good use?

paxman is worth his salt, well, half maybe. don't know about her though. horrible lady.

I don't see the problem, if thats the market rate, thats the market rate. Its not as if they are allowed to secretly top it up, and then try and hide the evidence

She got pwned!

It's from the using a "p" instead of "o" for "owned" - from gaming forums I think. (p is beside o on a keyboard)

Remember this is 92K for someone in the relative backwater of the "BBC News Channel". The presenters on the 10 o clock news must get a fair whack more than that, which seems quite a lot of money for sitting down and reading out what it says on an autocue.

From typing messages in games when people quite often hit the p instead of the o whilst frantically fragging. Yes, I said "fragging".

It's cos they is l337 innit?

BBC is heavily unionized and they have standard pay scales, so I doubt thats actually the case.

still makes a nice supposition.

I contest that the salaries being paid represent a 'market rate'. That implies that the market is operating efficiently and when it comes to the BBC, I doubt it's anything like efficient.

In order for it to be a true market rate, the BBC would need to operating on an entirely commercial basis in order to be able to connect the investment in salary with a market return. Since it has no such mechanism (because it's effectively financed by a government granted tax) it has no incentive to be efficient, hence you get artificially inflated salaries.

Another thing that hacks me off is how much the bloody nurses get paid. Slackers! Could a nurse do a ghurka's job? Of course not! Then they shouldn't be paid as much as a ghurka. No-one in the UK is as worthy of financial reward as ghurkas, and they are paid in thin soup and pictures of Queen Victoria. If it's good enough for the ghurkas then it's good enough for the nurses. Parasitic, thieving NHS scum the lot of them.

****ing hillarious BigDummy! I especially like the reference to being paid in pictures of Queen Victoria.

Stop moaning about other peoples pay. If you want why dont you apply for the job - afterall, some reckon they could sit down and read an autocue.

The fact that there is good money to be made is a good thing - dont knock other peoples luck at getting a well paid job. At least here in the UK you stand a pretty good chance of getting most jobs in a fair manner. Unlike some contries where you need to bribe you way in, or where there are no jobs or they are controlled by a union etc.

Sound not working for me. I can happily imagine that he actually says "pwned" to her.

Think £92k is unlikely though, did she cop to that? Would guess more like £50-60k.

hence you get artificially inflated salaries.

Are they actually more than commercial stations? Or US TV presenter salaries?

I'm guessing that newsreaders get paid quite a lot for their ability to say the right thing first time (news is still live isn't it?) and still look natural. 99% of people, when stuck in front of a camera, they take half an hour to read a couple of sentences right.

Joe

Why shouldnt the BBC pay above market rate? I would prefer that they did so we didn't end up with the kind of dross that Sky and ITN get

He seemed to think that she's paid nearly twice an MP - his maths is appalling so maybe that's why they get so confused with their expenses? As for journalists harrassing MPs - well that's what we need isn't it for a democracy to work in the real world? I don't think he helped his case at all.

Also watched Stephen Fry's bit - I tend to think most of what he says is great but not this - MPs have taken expense claiming to a whole new level.

What are your skills CK? - I may have leads on a couple of openings for you.

Mech/Elec Engineer. Comfortably sat in a meagre wage job currently though!

[i]hence you get artificially inflated salaries. [/i]

Didn;t that Natasha bird move to Chanell 5 news on a half-million pound contract?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Kaplinsky

No, only £300,000 a year, my mistake. Nice work if you can get it, but I doubt many blokes would be as excited about me reading the news instead of her....

[i]Parasitic, thieving NHS scum the lot of them.[/i]

8)

The interesting thing is that for the BBC to employ stars it has to pay more than the commercial stations think worthwhile. Also for sports coverage - I'd rather ITV pay for the big sports events and let them earn money from the resulting increased advertising revenue - than pay for them through through the TV license and get advert free watching. Actually, I from a selfish perspective I don't mind if it's something I like but I'm thinking of people who could do with saving a bit of cash.

Whilst I'm surprised that she earns that much (I'm sure there are a few STWers who earn more), I applaud her for revealing how much she actually earns (she does not in any way have to reveal this, as she is not a Public Servant or employed by the State, nor is she elected into an office of power). And as she points out, she uses her own 'phone to make calls..

That fat odious slimy toad she was talking to gets many times what she does, without question.

Meanwhile, Jonathon Woss gets paid £856 million a year...

Oh, and BBC employees are paid from the Licence Fee revenue, not from public funds (so don't get yer knickers in a twist!). I don't contribute toward any BBC employees wages, as I don't have a TV and don't need to pay a licence fee. Therefore I don't care what they earn. Unlike MPs, who are paid from our taxes, which we have no choice over.

'Undermine Democracy'???

Ha ha! Tosser!

Notice how he din't reveal how much he earns a year.....

No chance of a cushy non-exec directorship or 2 to go with the news-reading job though. The radio news bods seem to work shifts and I wonder if that goes for News 24 as well.

Rudeboy did you miss this bit

Told it was £92,000 a year, he said she was being paid "nearly twice as much an MP - to come on and talk nonsense".

No, is it relevant?

So he can't add up propply/likes to manipulate figures to suit his own pathetic argument. Does that surprise you?

[i]No, is it relevant?[/i]

Well given you made claims about what he makes then yes. Oh and most of what else you posed I agree with and can't say I was shocked as it's be revealed before, in fact not sure but some tool a pay cut a few years ago to put them under £100k.

Oh, right.

He's not an MP.

Large, and quite important point, here....

its an Americanism, hence retarded, and usually used by retards. Spot the theme.

I'd just like to apologise to the thread, in particular to richc, for my completely unacceptable use of the internet slang "pwned". To clear up any misunderstanding, the message I wished to communicate was my belief that Lord Foulkes was able to score a significant tactical victory during his argument with the presenter Carrie Gracie, turning the tables on his attacker with a most robust ad hominem defence.

Oh, and to suggest an Americanism is, by definition, retarded - that's ridiculous.

He's not an MP.

Large, and quite important point, here....

Oh errrr

Quick look over there.

/runs away.

/creeps back in

[i]Oh, and to suggest an Americanism is, by definition, retarded - that's ridiculous. [/i]

Even more so when it's not an Americanism.

Where? What? Eh?

Where's he gone...?

😉 😆

I could blame being on nights but it's more my lack of any interest in politics was nearly as bad as trying to follow a football match on the radio last night. I had no idea who was trying to score goals unless they said the team and not just the player.

Susanna Reid is worth every penny 😉

She was on the couch with Darcey Bussel yesterday 😛

Hang on, hang on...

... she does pay for all her own phone calls. Clearly that is going to severely dent that £92k. I mean she's probably not getting paid much more than the average working class family takes home if you take into account the kids dole money.

RudeBoy, do you know what Lord 'what ever his name is' earns? Do you also not think that 'some' if not 'most' MP's are probably doing a decent job for the 60K a year they earn? I think they prob do more than that news presenter does for her 92k a year.

I think most of what Lord thingy said was fair, and I also agree with what Stepehn Fry said, we really need to bring this much media attention to more IMPORTANT matters...

I don't think we pay them enough

But to fleece the tax payer as some sort of tax free bonus is not on

I've had loads of jobs that didn't pay well but I didn't steal from my employer to 'bump it up a bit'
They should have a word with whoever it is who decides what they should get paid - oh, hang on a minute .............

Si; I don't really care what she earns. It's irrelevant. She works for an essentially private company (albeit State regulated). She is not payed through taxpayers' money.

I personally think journalists do a pretty good job, overall. Quite why this fat slimeball thinks he, or any other politician, is beyond scrutiny, shows the contempt in which HE holds 'democracy'. Scurrilous bastard.

Journalists report the news. If the news is that MPs are scamming the nation, then the people have a right to know about this. In this case, journalists are indeed doing an important job.

MPs, on the other hand, are little more than line managers, who tell other people what to do. Many of them have very little real knowledge of what people really need in society anyway; if they really cared, why are they spending OUR money on their own personal luxuries? Scum.

Toad of Toad Hall is just pissed off, because all the little 'perks' are being uncovered. Their 'nice little earners' are under threat.

I'd quite like to see people like him out of a job.

Then President RudeBoy can take over; sort this nation out, do the job as it [i]should[/i] be done.

£92K is chump change. Please step forward:

Natasha Kaplinsky - £350K at the BBC, now on £1m at Five
Hugh Edwards - £400K at the BBC
John Humphries - £155K just for Radio4 work
Paxo - rumoured to be on the thin end of £600K
Adrian Chiles - fat bloke on "The one show" £1m a year

All of the above earn several times more than the Prime Minister, and in some cases just read off an autocue. It's frankly amazing that the public aren't in arms about the license fee being used to pay hundreds of thousands in salaries when there are many equally competent people who could do the job for much less.

As anyone who's ever spent any time at the BBC will know, the BBC squeals like a pig at the mere prospect of having to use our money more prudently.

Michael Ballack, of Chelsea FC. Who has apparently just signed a new contract reputed to be worth around £130,000.......

....... A WEEK.

[img] [/img]

But you don't have to watch football, or go to matches, or buy replica shirts, or anything, unless you want to.

Anyone getting it, yet?

But you don't have to watch football, or go to matches, or buy replica shirts, or anything, unless you want to.

Anyone getting it, yet?

Well put. The licence fee is, whatever you may say, voluntary. Therefore, what this lady is paid is largely irrelevant.

Lord Foulkes is "paid" over £150k a year. That payment is not voluntary for any of us.

Well put. The licence fee is, whatever you may say, voluntary. Therefore, what this lady is paid is largely irrelevant.

It's not quite voluntary, though, is it? There's no legal way in the UK to own a TV and only watch the Discovery Channel on it, is there?

I fully agree it's completely irrelevant to the argument over MPs expenses, though.

There's no legal way in the UK to own a TV and only watch the Discovery Channel on it, is there?

Yes there is, actually. The TV has to be de-tuned, so that it can't receive BBC channels. The licence covers 'equipment capable of receiving a television signal as it is broadcast live'. If it can't, then you is no have to pay licence fee.

So, it is a [i]completely[/i] voluntary fee.

Farmer_John, what exactly do you know of the BBC? I have worked inside that august institution and I can tell you that value for money and controlling costs is taken very seriously indeed.

So, I want to know what you know and who it concerns, and I will alert the appropriate people.

What's that, cat got your tongue?

[i]Yes there is, actually. The TV has to be de-tuned, so that it can't receive BBC channels. The licence covers 'equipment capable of receiving a television signal as it is broadcast live'. If it can't, then you is no have to pay licence fee.[/i]

Not quite true. It has to be detuned from recieving *any* TV signal, not just the BBC.
And of course the payment of MP salaries is also voluntary, in that no one is forcing you to live in this country.

Yes there is, actually. The TV has to be de-tuned, so that it can't receive BBC channels. The licence covers 'equipment capable of receiving a television signal as it is broadcast live'. If it can't, then you is no have to pay licence fee.

So, it is a completely voluntary fee.

I think you're wrong about that. I think you'll find that you need a TV license to watch *any* TV programmes live as they are broadcast.

Hmm, possibly, but I do know of people that have de-tuned a telly, so 'terrestrial' channels aren't available; for to play Ecks-Boks, for example, and can watch Sky etc without having to pay a licence fee. regardless; Only the BBC(and bits of C4) are funded by the LF.

Anyway; I have a choice over that. I don't have a choice over MPs lining their own greedy pokkits. Bastards.

And of course the payment of MP salaries is also voluntary, in that no one is forcing you to live in this country.

WTF is that sposed to mean? What a stupid statement to make.

Actually I was just being polite when I said I think you are wrong. You are wrong.

And your friends are breaking the law.

No, you're probbly right, actually. Not that it really matters, anyway.

i'm most concerned that this guy reckons 2x60k = 92k

maybe they should do basic arithmetic courses for mp's might help them add up the expenses claim.

Journalists report the news

LOL. Journalists decide what is news. Too often they go for easy stories, or stories which fit a particular narrative. They scaremonger, they manipulate, they make political points with what they decide we should be told about. Too many journalists are in cahoots with politicians, business, celebrities and (most obviously) sports people. Moreover, too many 'journalists', at best, don't understand or, at worst, can't be bothered to report the complexity of particular events.

They scaremonger, they manipulate, they make political points with what they decide we should be told about.

I feel fairly confident that no journalist scares me, no journalist manipulates me, and no journalist restricts my access to information.

What newspaper do you read CaptJon ?

You're obviously an intelligent person grizzly.

I don't read newspapers.

No, my intelligence is pretty average I would say.

So come you have such strong views on the behaviour of journalists, if you don't read newspapers - do you read books about journalists ?

**** all this shilly shallying around - come the revolution all these thieving b4st4rds will be heaped up on the burning fires of retribution at each street corner - loaded on by the pitchforks of the righteous masses - not that I'm bitter me - oh no no no....

Journalists decide what is news.

So, who should decide what is news? Maybe we shoon't have journalists at all, and just live in blissful ignorance?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Maybe we should just have our lovely, honest politicians tell us what's going on, eh?

Some very emotive images there RudeBoy. I presume from your questions you take my point that journalists don't just report the news.

Grizzly, it is not easy to escape journalists these days. They have them on the radio and even TV, apparently some write in magazines too. I like know what is going on in the world. Unfortunately to get a decent picture of what is happening you have to go beyond the mainstream media because they are obsessed with news as entertainment and a limit spectrum of stories. Health scares, celebrities, depicting Westminster as a soap opera, headlines over substance, blame - these are the staples of mainstream news. Look at swine flu, the G20 protests, the work of MPs, Jade Goody etc. All dumbed down, hyped up and misrepresented by the various sections of the media.

She works for an essentially private company (albeit State regulated). She is not payed through taxpayers' money.

The BBC are big enough to affect the market price for "journalists" aka auto cue readers. Exactly the same happens with the BBC payments to "talent" such as Ross, Brand, Moyles etc

he benign BBC are also keep trying to destroy local independant news who can't compete when advertising revenues get squeezed