UK News
Insights from the UK and beyond
How should money saved at the BBC be spent?
As part of its efforts to counter the bite of the economic downturn, the BBC is suspending bonuses and reviewing the pay scales of its executives. It is also set to reduce the amount it spends on talent.
The BBC is making the cuts in reaction to its dominant role during the recession compared with its struggling competitors, as well as to its own financial challenges, Michael Lyons, the head of the BBC Trust, said.
“There has been considerable disquiet in recent weeks about the salaries of top BBC staff,” Lyons said.
The BBC announced this week that Worldwide revenues are in excess of 1 billion pounds, but that profits before interest, tax and exceptional charges were down to 86 million pounds from 118 million the previous year.
Now that savings have been made, where should that money be spent? The BBC says it needs to pay decent salaries to attract best talent, but do you agree? Should the licence fee be lowered?
Should the BBC allow swearing on air?
******In reaction to an independent BBC review on taste and standards commissioned after offensive comments about actor Andrew Sachs created a public outcry, the BBC Trust has said that the most offensive language should only be used in “exceptional circumstances” on BBC One between 9 and 10 p.m.******Editorial guidelines should clarify that BBC should not make programmes that “celebrate or condone gratuitous, aggressive, intrusive and humiliating behaviour,” the Trust ruled, recognizing that “licence fee payers can distinguish between comedy and satire, which they appreciate, and unjustified humiliation, of which they disapprove.” ******The study, which polled 2,700 participants, finds that viewers don’t want more censorship or regulation.******”Most people value the creativity of the BBC and accept it may sometimes result in people being offended.”******What do you think? Should BBC allow swearing on air?
Some of the views expressed in these comments about others in society (“the great unwashed”, “common people”) are far more offensive than the use of swearing, and should give more cause for concern about the state and future of our society. I’d worry less about children growing up using the f-word, and more about them growing learning from the example of Messrs Schwartz and Davis up to look down upon others.The same rules and standards should apply to all broadcasters, publicly-funded or otherwise. The 9pm watershed should be respected, but I think the most severe swearing should probably be held for after 10pm, maybe later.To Mr/Ms Franklin – the reason you should change the channels is because you have the freedom to do so, and avoid the swearing by only affecting yourself. For you to have it your way affects and restricts the freedom of all the other people, who are not offended by swearing, who want to be able to view programmes, and cannot because of you. That’s why censorship should always be reserved for the most severe, and legitimately dangerous, material.
Has “Auntie” got it right?
After a week of media frenzy, the BBC hopes it has taken action to end the crisis caused by the crude prank call made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand on the latter’s Radio 2 show.
Brand has quit and Jonathan Ross has been suspended after the presenters left lewd comments on the answerphone of 78-year-old “Fawlty Towers” actor Andrew Sachs. The head of Radio 2 Lesley Douglas has also resigned.
The outcome it would appear has left no one happy. Most commentators feel the BBC took far too long to act on an issue that had clearly angered the public with more than 30,000 people making a complaint.
Many newspapers feel Douglas was unjustly sacrificed, taking the rap for mistakes made by production staff she had little or nothing to do with. The Daily Mirror said she was a “big loss to weak BBC”.
What it means for the BBC is unclear. Its governing body, the BBC Trust, says lessons must be learned and editorial guidelines tightened without jeopardising creativity and “edgy” programmes.
Those like the Daily Mail, a regular critic of the broadcaster, want the corporation to go further, citing other “highly offensive” jokes, including one about the Queen, that have appeared on the BBC since the row erupted.
Others worry that fear of causing offence will make the BBC safe and irrelevant.
“who will watch him now” asked Offended of Tunbridge Wells.
Well I will, for one. And so will the millions of people who used to enjoy watching him before the mindless hordes of vacuous Daily Mail readers got onto their blue-rinse bandwagon. Those professionally-offended minority will not dictate to the quiet and sensible majority what we watch or listen to.
Hard as it may be for them to believe, but they speak for nobody but themselves, and I find their presumption that they in some way speak for the country simultaneously insulting and worrying.
Thatcher’s dead, get over it. (You mean she’s not? Ah well, another week or so…)
Are the BBC’s stars worth their millions?
When it was disclosed two years ago that TV and radio presenter Jonathan Ross was on an 18 million pound three-year contract, many both inside and outside the BBC reacted with dismay.
After all, wasn’t the BBC pleading for more money from the government and higher licence fees from the viewer at the time?
Comments were made in the House of Commons. But the BBC chiefs defended the salaries, without confirming the amounts.
Now a report commissioned by the BBC Trust, the independent body that sets the standards and benchmarks for the corporation, has backed the salaries, saying they are in line with the going rate.
“Some might find this surprising,” the trust’s chairman writes in the Daily Telegraph.
While acknowledging the BBC’s special funding status, he said it was working hard to keep its pay costs down.
Can the BBC afford to pay its stars up to six million pounds a year? Should it allow its pay salary to follow commercial rates, or should it concentrate on finding new talent?
No. They are NOT worth all that precious money.
Spend it on drama, new plays and start nurturing real talent like it used to do, BBC!
I think Jonathan Ross, for example, is woefully over-egged. I find him to be much less than the hype, and so I do not even bother to watch him 
!
I rest my case!
-
The Wall
The BBC makes some good programs, but could probably get away with doing as much with less money.