Loadsamoney
Sir Michael Lyons thinks the public would be reassured if they were allowed to know roughly how much the BBC pays its stars and executives.
It’s that word everyone’s so fond of: “Transparency. “
Transparency alone is not enough. Knowing the extent of something disturbing is a good start, but it isn’t the answer to the public’s dissatisfaction.
We want reassurance that we’re getting value for money, not just that Graham Norton and Fiona Bruce are raking in vast paypackets “because they’re worth it.”
When Christine Bleakley dithered over her decision to join Adrian Chiles at ITV, her dilemma was presented as a matter of whether to follow the money or preserve her integrity by not being greedy, and staying with the superior BBC for a modest sum. Well, not exactly modest; but what do I know.
Her departure endorsed the market forces argument, which the BBC always uses to defend huge salaries, while their pre emptive sacking of Bleakley made them appear frugal and resolute. It gave them the opportunity to pose as unwilling participants in a bidding war, which was angled to make them appear concerned about spending our money. Maybe they hoped that wouldn’t undermine their their market forces argument; that if you wants talent you pays for it.
Maybe they thought that transparency over pay would allay the public’s disquiet over salaries. But I don’t think it would alleviate the confusion over what actually constitutes talent, and what constitutes greed, and what constitutes quality.
THE LAW THAT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED
I thought that Emma Boon from the Taxpayers Alliaance was given quite a tough time on Today this morning as the BBC covered the Coalition suggestion that the public can decide which useless laws should be scrapped. Give it a listen. However it struck me that there is one piece of legislation that does need to be repealed without further ado - and THAT is the one forcing us to fund the BBC. Please Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg - can we just axe that right now?
TALK TO THE TALIBAN
I found it telling that the Taliban chose the BBC as its propaganda conduit to declare it sees no reason to talk to NATO. John Simpson, that doyen of fairness and impartiality, was the point man in this exercise, and as he gushes the Taliban believe they are winning the war so why bother talking? What annoys me most about this is not the way in which Simpson and the rest of the BBC rush to broadcast Taliban propaganda (That's par for the course) but rather the impact this sort of story has on the families of those brave men and women serving their country in Afghanistan. It's the drip drip drip of BBC manufactured defeatism that so enrages me. Fighting the savages in the Taliban is one thing but countering the PR the BBC afford them is quite another. From where I sit, the BBC are the enemy within and every time our military goes into action the BBC will not be far behind them, undermining their every action.
OLIVER'S ARMY
>> WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2010
I see the BBC is doing everything possible to big up Jamie Oliver given Andrew Lansley's polite but accurate observation that the Nanny State is not our friend and that Oliver's army of dinner ladies serving his "healthy" meals was less than successful.
Posts
