MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
So all that luvvie angst and it appears to be a bit of a damp squib. Main points seem to be:
- Impartiality to be regulated by OfCom like other broadcasters,
- Salaries over £450 K to be disclosed
- NAO to audit
- Government to appoint 6 members of 14 person board - following existing Public Appointment rules.
It now seems the announcement of all government policy goes as follows.
1. Formulate the actual policy
2. Leek stories to the press about an uber-extreme version of the policy, amounting to scorched earth, privatise everything in sight, hand it all to Rupert Murdoch, and allow any government minister to veto anything they don't want broadcast
3. Sit and watch outrage ferment and [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/if-you-touch-cbeebies-we-will-destroy-you-parents-warn-government-20160512108802 ]protest grow[/url]
4. Announce actual policy, which now sounds perfectly reasonable in comparison.
At the end of the day they've just announced that the government of the day is going to appoint people who will then have a say on editorial content. That in itself makes an absolute mockery of editorial independence, and effectively makes the BBC a de facto state broadcaster, North Korean stylee
Binners - you are meant to add a 😉 to that kind of stuff. Otherwise folk will take your posts seriously.
N Korean style 😀
Salaries over £450 K to be disclosed
I'm curious as to the logic of that - why is that a requirement to be made only of the BBC and not [i]any[/i] media organisation? Or any organisation at all. If several channels are bidding for 'talent' why does only the BBC have to disclose.
Its not unusual in those situations for the beeb not to be the highest bidder but for people to sign with them anyway. The 'scandal' over Jonathan Ross's income when he hosted his show on the beeb previously is a perfect example - other channels had offered more and he'd turned them down. The media agencies that we're decrying the excess of is salary were really just bitter that he'd snubbed their higher offer.
I'm curious as to the logic of that - why is that a requirement to be made only of the BBC and not any media organisation?
Commercial organisations profitability is a matter between them and their shareholders - there are disclosure requirements under the Companies Acts - we, as a nation, are essentially the shareholders of BBC so it seems pretty reasonable.
BBC should be developing talent not paying top dollar for established names
Are they actually going to disclose salaries - or bands and the people in the band. Given that currently 50% of the programmes are produced by non-BBC produces and they actually employ the staff this is going to be very difficult to make work. Graham Norton is not paid by the BBC, but by a whole range of companies making programmes for the BBC. So does he get into the list!
The main changes seem to be Ofcom taking oversight for impartiality, the NAO getting to look at the books (note that the BBC accounts are audited) and the government of the day getting to put 6 members on the board (of 14).
Ofcom is not an issue (assuming that it has the capacity).
NAO could be a problem if it feels that it wants to start telling the BBC how to make programmes
Board is not an issue, most left and right wingers become BBC fans soon after joining the BBC. Plus the fact that of the Tory party ever lose an election then their successors will get their choice!
Hurty - you don't think that the government now appointing 6 people who will manage the output of the national broadcaster, including its news reporting is a touch anti-democratic? Not even slightly North Korea-ish?
There should be an annual list of those in the BBC earning more money than the Prime Minister, then perhaps the possibility for the shareholders, in the guise of all TV Tax payers, to veto excessive salaries.
Hurty - you don't think that the government now appointing 6 people who will manage the output of the national broadcaster, including its news reporting is a touch anti-democratic? Not even slightly North Korea-ish?
Are the other 8 people on the board elected?
BBC should be developing talent not paying top dollar for established names
Aye they don't do that at all http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy
I think you're missing the point. Do you think the government should be appointing anyone at all to potentially influence the news output of the national broadcaster? Or do you think it should stay the **** out of it, as its none of their bloody business?
Hurty - you don't think that the government now appointing 6 people who will manage the output of the national broadcaster, including its news reporting is a touch anti-democratic? Not even slightly North Korea-ish?
About as undemocratic as you can get!
They may as well just have the news bulletins broadcast direct by No.10.
earning more money than the Prime Minister
This phrase needs to be struck from the language, with its use punishable by umbanu.
Or do you think it should stay the **** out of it, as its none of their bloody business?
^ That
About as undemocratic as you can get!
There have never been any democratic appointments to the BBC. At present, the Trust is politically appointed. The new model will allow the BBC for the first time to appoint people to the ultimate level of governance, the government will appoint a Chairman (as they do now), a Deputy Chairman (as they do now) and a non exec for each country. Only executive members of the board will be responsible for day to day editorial decision.
BBC is funded via a tax so we deserve to know how its spent. Some of the redundancy payments have been very cushy for example. Have I Got News for You is a great example of how you don't need a high profile well paid host to have a successful show.
BBC should be funded very differently
It's almost like the government needs the BBC's help with something over the next couple of months.
Pretty limp white paper. Champers all round at W1A.
JambalayaThe BBC is funded via a tax
No it isn't! You may want to look up the definition of 'tax', Jammers. The license fee clearly isn't one.
Come on Jammers! You can do better than this! 😀
binners - Member ...Leek stories
And I thought you iz educated...
the BBC is funded by tax .......
..
...........the BBC should be funded very differently
It is funded very differently from how you seem to think it is.
No it isn't! You may want to look up the definition of 'tax', Jammers. The license fee clearly isn't one.
You won't have long to wait for it though. The 'universal charge' is apparently going to be bunged onto your council tax bill, regardless of whether you even own a tellybox or other viewing device.
^^ SOURCE for claim please- I bet one hacked phone and a countdown to an underage girl being legal that its Digger
:lol:@ neal
ONe day a jamby post will be factually true... I hope I live to see it 😉
Better than I hoped for from Tories but less than a good deal
The Beeb seems to be sticking up for the Tories without any help from new board members! But if you complain, you are labelled "misogynist" and your complaintg ignored.
Interesting reading here:
Craig Murray is certifiable.
Shooting the messenger there as you cannot negate their message
Regular readers know I myself receive constant abuse,
Oh the irony . a topic about media types getting online abuse[ that there is no evidence of in Kunsberg case] and you resorted to abuse
He is a conspiracy theorist who has been going on about this stuff for years, he is probably mates with JHJ.
He is a conspiracy theorist who has been going on about this stuff for years, he is probably mates with JHJ.
It doesn't matter what he says, it is the archived petition which speaks for itself.
About as undemocratic as you can get!They may as well just have the news bulletins broadcast direct by No.10.
FFS, get a grip.
Actually tbf you boys like to talk about the power of the media. You are correct. The gross exaggeration of nearly every story is breathtaking at times - the media are tainting us all. The hyberbole virus is endemic.
Bins, sorry but "no". I am, however, grateful to the honourably gentleman mefty for his considered response.
Not much calamari coming from this damp squid. so where will the froth for tonight's QT come from - Dave's gaffe or Carney's common sense? There's little or no story here.
There should be an annual list of those in the BBC earning more money than the Prime Minister
They may as well just have the news bulletins broadcast direct by No.10.
It would save a few bob I guess
Not sure if this is frothy enough for you THM, and clearly from the other side of the fence from Binners, but I will leave this here for your consideration:
[url= http://http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tory-mp-claims-conservatives-are-the-most-oppressed-minority-in-britain_uk_57347678e4b01359f6869974 ]BBC White Paper: Peter Lilley thinks Conservatives are the most oppressed minority in Britain. [/url]