The BBC

[BertiWooster]

From one who objects to being forced to pay a direct tax in order to watch that box in the corner - irrespective of how much BBC content i view ...

..... Message to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph Will you please make efforts to procure , next , a disc of the expenses of the BBC staff .

This is in order that we can see that the next inflation busting increase in the licence fee is justified .

I caught the end of someone being intervied on one of the news channels , late the other night - who stated tnat he had been informed by BBC journalists that there is a lot of waste going on at the Cooperation .
I'm not suprised , when there also appears , for example , to be a lot of duplication - head of news for this area - head of news for that area , etc .etc

Is anyone else of the same opinion ?

[Gromit]

There is waste at the BBC, but duplication of jobs is not the problem (and the news department is probably the least wasteful).

The BBC are obviously paying too much for 3rd rate presenters, Gary Lineker �1.5M, Alan Hanson �1M, some woman who reads the news called Fiona Bruce is on �500,000 annually.

However, the biggest waste comes in salaries for top executives. 'Head of People' gets �431,000. 'Head of Marketing' gets �413,000. 'Director of Vision' �536,000. 'Director of of Future Media' �466,000.

The BBC paid �17.5M in bonuses last year, despite its audience share reducing. The BBC spent �40 on flights and hotels.

[VHG]

>The BBC spent �40 on flights and hotels.

Only �40, cant complain at that.

[VHG]

While I agree that the BBC do pay excessive salaries to some people (Jonathan Ross!!), overall the BBC is good value for money.

If I were to say buy the Daily Telegraph each day at 90p a day (in fact it is more expensive at weekends) that would cost me nearly �300 for the year.

If I bought one pint in a pub each night at �2 a pint that would cost me over �700 a year.

Yet the BBC costs me only �142 a year (39p a day).

For that I get all their TV stations (BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4 etc) plus all their radio statoins (Radio 1,2,3,4,5 live, 6 ,7 plus local stations).

Plus I get their great web site which I visit EVERY day and has to be one of the best web sites on the web.

I feel the BBC is one of the few things the UK can still be proud about. Our programs are admired all over the world.

When most TV produced is DROSS, the BBC are one of the last bastions of decent, qualiy TV.

Programs like Springwatch, Who do you think you are, South Pacific, all the Attenborough wildlife stuff, the documentaries, the dramas, the comedies.

I would hate to think what TV would be like if we stopped getting programs like them....probably like American TV.

And if you have ever seen American TV you would know how bad that is.

I am happy to pay my �142 a year to keep that.

[jason.p]

I have never understood why they have to have two news presenters, and send reporters to far flung locations to report on what is often a very trivial item.
"over to you Bill..." "back to you Kate..." etc. etc. I often feel that i'm being patronised, esp with the explanatory set pieces and grahics. As if I didn't know what a supermarket checkout or garage fore-court looks like!!
As far as I'm concerned the news would be better presented by a cartoon character, then the dumbing down would be complete!

[jake-the-peg]

Something at least that VHG and I agree on.

European TV is not much better than US TV.

Go beat up the BBC but don't come running back here moaning about the state of things when there's nothing but
soap operas and Simon Cowell torturing wannabees.

[flip_flop]

I'm with VHG - I think the BBC is fantastic value for money and is one of the few forced payments we are obliged to make (Income Tax, Council Tax, Road Tax, NI etc...) where I don't feel I am paying too much and being ripped off.

South Pacific is a good case in point. Can you imagine ITV making a documentary as excellent as this? (in fact, do ITV make any documentaries?).

VHG - can you let me know the pub you drink in where it costs �2 a pint? The average where I am is now over �3!

[jake-the-peg]

Actually flip-flop ITV do the excellent South Bank arts program.

Oh no sorry, they just cancelled it didn't they? I guess it wasn't attracting enough Soap powder advertising money

[sp1814]

I have to go along with the view that the BBC is amazing value for money.

As to the degree of wastage - it would be a good idea to examine where efficiencies could be made, but my worry is that bean counters are more interested in the bottom line, rather than functional expertise.

You could quite easily have news reporters all based in the UK taking feeds from associated news journalists, but that would put it on a lower footing than the Independent news stations.

There's a reason why people tune into the BBC in times of national crisis / events.

It has authority.

[R1Geezer]

Yep, spot on VHG, The BBC is cheap, that's not to say I agree with the whole shooting match but on the whole the BBC is the envy of the broadcasting world. Believe me you only have to look at the others. Sky+ is the only thing that makes it bearable! As pointed out above, it's a lot less than a newspaper a day.

[Gromit]

Agree with VHG and Geezer, the Beeb is fantastic value for the license fee.

[sandmaster]

There are a lot of overpaid presenters and executives at the BBC. But compared to the amount I pay Sky every month I consider the licence fee excellent value for money. I would just be a lot happier if over paid has beens like Jonathan Ross were dropped.
I think the BBC could accept advertising on some of its channels, but not BBC1 please.

[Quinlad]

I agree. It's much much better than the alternative.

Take the license fee away and they'll be scrabbling round for advertising revenue, making programmes that tick a commercial box. Sitcoms will be cut back, intelligent drama will go, current affairs and arts show will be replaced with glossy ITV-style tabloidy alternatives. If a show doesn't get the right audience, it'll be axed, regardless of how good it is.

Seriously - careful what you wish for.

I do think the BBC are pulling a fast one at the moment though. Programme budgets are being cut; writers, actors, directors, editors are being paid less; corners are being cut - and the BBC says it's down to the current economic climate. Er... they're on a fixed income. They're one of the few organisations unaffected by the credit crunch. And yet they're using it as an excuse to rip off suppliers. A bit naughty.

[BertiWooster]

This arguement that the BBC costs so many pence per day is always trotted out , whenever this subject is discussed

So what ?

My objection is, being forced to pay this tax to the BBC ,in order to watch ANY other station .

I'm not arguing as to whether or not the BBC puts out good content ,or not - give me the choice of choosing what I wish to pay for - simple

Further , they should justify that there isn't a lot of wastage and duplication before they come for an increase in the licence fee .
If there isn't , why would these BBC journalists be speaking off the record ?

Another arguement that is always used is that if they dont pay these high salaries to some of these employees , then they will go elswhere .
Well , put it to the test , let's see how manty of these presenters and behind the scenes employees resign or are snapped up by other orginasations .
Not many I would say - they know when they are on to a good thing .

[Everhelpful]

I'm with you Bertie Wooster.

[Oneeyedvic]

The employees you are talking about are paid a commercial rate - you must have seen presenters such as Richard & Judy or Natasha Kaplinsky channel hopping to get better wages - it happens all the time.

Yes, you could consider it a tax - but I for one am happy to pay this.

There is probably as much waste at my local council or at customs and excise as there is at the BBC.

I for (another) one would not want to see the demise of the BBC - as said earlier - look at TV in other countries before you complain about the programming in this country.

[Rollo]

There are lots of things we are required to pay for whether we use them or not.

[BertiWooster]

Please dont patronize me by telling me to '' look at TV in other countries before you complain about the programming in this country ''

At the risk of repeating myself - i object to being forced to pay the BBC in order to watch ALL other channels .

I'm done

[R1Geezer]

Well there's lots of things we are forced to pay tax for that we don't use mate. So you want to opt out do you? Can you not see what a shambles that would be if possible. I agree it's a tax but I think it's a goodun. I'd rather pay the BBC than 15 times as much to my local council so they can hire diversity consultants et al, and still not empty the kin bin!

[123everton]

I'm sorry Berti old boy but I like the B.B.C and don't begrudge paying for it, although I feel the air time of B.B.C 3 and 4 should be increased to show the previous nights highlights (ok repeats).
The Beeb is accountable to us in some small way, if it went then we'd either get another Murdoch channel or (worse?) a situation like in Italy were the Prime Minister owns most of the channels and makes sure the programmes present him in a favourable light.