The BBC is finally being punished!

[longfingernails]

Apparently there is a great plan to shift the cost of free TV licenses from the taxpayer to the BBC - with no increase in the license fee to compensate!

That amounts to about a 20% cut in the BBC budget. I am over the moon at this news.

It's incredibly progressive too! It shifts the burden from poor taxpayers to overpaid BBC staff, who will probably have to take a 25% pay cut! I am sure the newsreader who revealed she was paid £92k will be distraught. I can't even begin to imagine how much luvvies like Robert Peston and Andrew Marr are paid.

Maybe the next time the BBC says that "public spending cuts take money out of the economy" on the news, it might like to reflect on why Tories are so cock-a-hoop tonight.

They are in the middle of a "Cuts watch" series of programmes, I understand. Funnily enough, they never seemed to get round to a "Deficit watch" or "Tax watch" series during the Labour years. Strange, really - I wonder why?

Claig - The article you linked to does not support your point that that BBC is currently biased.

The articles I linked to however, DO support my point that there are accusations of bias from the left as well as the right.

I'm an ex BBC employee so need to declare an interest. BBC salaries are at the lower end of the spectrum. Most employees could earn a damn sight more elsewhere, but choose to work at the BBC due to a belief in its values and ethos. They are hugely proud of its output, and also very aware of exactly who is funding the organisation. I could not count the number of meetings I have been at where the issue of whether doing something would be a good use of licence fee payers' money - it is the backbone of the decision making behind the scenes.

Whether or not all its decisions are right is open to debate. But show me a single organisation which does.

What do you expect Mark Thompson to say? He has said that they were "guilty" of a "massive" bias in the past. He is hardly likely to say that they still are.

(make all the right decisions that is.)

Although I have issues with the some of the BBCs areas of business (local news and travel guides foe example), it is excellent value for money.

I'd be happy to pay my licence fee for the radio programmes alone.

Well it's probably the last nail in my coffin having worked for the BBC for the past 20 years. For the past 12 years, since having children, I have been freelance and my wages haven't increased despite my asking them.

I hate the large salaries paid to managers and personalities. They weaken the BBC's case and undermine its deservedly great reputation which has been earned over decades by ordinary journalists on ordinary wages who work there because they believe in what they do.

I am having to retrain now despite the fact it's all I've ever done for the past 20 years.

Claig - That might be true. It is still the case that that article provides no evidence whatsoever of a current bias in the BBC.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou, you are right, there is no proof of a bias, and that is why I am not saying that there is a bias. I am leaving it up to people to read it and draw their own conclusions about whether they believe everything they read in the papers.

But, Larrygrylls, the private sector does not produce high-brow programming. Sky Arts largely just broadcasts events concerts etc that they have sponsored. Very worthy, and thanks to them for doing that, but it is not the same.

Almost any 'high brow' content, PBS in the States, for example, or Arte in continental Europe is produced with an element of public money.

Personally, I think educational TV is worthy of state funding in the same way that museums are. But then not everyone agrees that museums should be subsidised.

Incidentally your point about not needing to subsidise literature is incorrect as well as inapt. Apart from the fact that writing a novel is cheaper and technologically simpler than broadcasting a TV programme, the publishing industry benefits from a major tax break as books are not subject to VAT. Also, particularly at the educational end, state-funding libraries form a large part of the market.

Yes Scaryteacher, its that easy isn't it? When you've been in a job you love for 20 years which has been your life, and there are loads of other jobs out there. How simple it all is. I'm kicking myself for not having your wisdom.

I agree, public sector employees don't get bonuses either. That's not what this thread is about. Its about the BBC.

Agree with Spidermama, it's not the ordinary hardworking BBC employees that should bear the brunt of cuts. It's the management who allowed the wage spiral for "stars" to proliferate and who possibly made the wrong decisions about where the public's money should be spent and also the people responsible for this "massive" bias in the past, who have weakened the BBC's case.

We need more good media, more highbrow output, more smartening up. If teh BBC is not prepared to do it, then maybe we should create and support new commercial media organisations who have that as their remit. Then they could employ our talented media people, because it is true that we have some of the most talented media people in the world and they are one of our greatest assets.

"They are a public sector organisation so weshould restrict their pay"?!!!!!?

Are you suggesting that workers in the public sector should be paid less than those in the private sector for the same job? In which case, 'you pay peanuts you get monkeys'. There is no point having a public service if you won't support it.

But the overall tone of OP and those supporting her shows they clearly think that public service is something that should be done by those wealthy enough to do it in their spare time.

I believe we do need a public service broadcaster in the UK - the BBC is not it though. It is a bloated publicy funded, barely accountable quango that needs shutting down. It does have a natural left wing bias among the metropolitan elite that run it and staff it and I do not think it can ever be reformed.

I agree with Longfingernails that 50% salary cuts to people at the very top of the public sector need to be made and no cuts at all to those at the bottom. No one at the BBC needs to be paid more than the Prime Minister. If they do then they can go and work in private companies.

In my view a true public sector broadcaster is what the BBC used to be but has travelled a very long way from that role now. Cut back to 2 TV chanels and 4 radio channels putting out programmes that no other broadcaster will transmit plus good quality news, documentary and current affairs and perhaps a few defined national sporting events plus minority sports not otherwise covered. Funded entirely out of taxes not a TV licence.

Incidentally, I do not think it is right that BBC employees should also run private production companies that make the programmes they present on the BBC. It is a way of hiding the true level of pay that some of the top presenters take out of the BBC and a clear conflict of interest.

"If the BBC did not exist, I very much doubt all those above who defend it would like the suggestion of a flat rate poll tax to produce a television channel controlled by a board put in place by the government. I suspect it would be called a regressive tax on the poor to fund the pleasures of the time rich."

Yes, but it DOES exist. And it's good. Very good. It's also popular.

Thinking that something wouldn't be created now is not a good reason for dismantling something good that exists.

"Easy to produce a well respected brand with the public's money."

Is it? What is your basis for claiming that, or is it just something you spout out because you get itchy teeth whenever public money is spent on anything?

Why would you destroy a well-respected brand that is so valuable to Britain's international reputation because of some bullshit argument about novelists?

Pragmatism demands not destroying the Beeb..

Agree the BBC should not be destroyed. It should be reformed. It shouldn't be trying to be a multi-platform media organisation and some of its internet sites could be cut back. It should cut down its populist broadcasting, it should let the commercial broadcasters do that. It should also cut the wages of its "stars".

I think its budget shouldn't be cut, but all of the savings made should be reinvested back into high quality highbrow cultural and educational output that we should be supporting as a country. Then we could keep all of the staff who make the programmes, it's just that some of the programmes themselves would change.

"It shouldn't be trying to be a multi-platform media organisation"

So roll it back the days when it just did radio?

Spidookly,

Could not disagree more. I do get itchy feet when "public" money is spent on anything, as it is your and my money. In addition, the BBC is funded by a regressive poll tax which hits the poorest the hardest.

So, if we are going to spend "public" money, then we had better have a damn good reason for spending it. And, when it comes to a media organisation with plenty of private sector competitors which do the same job, I just do not see a good reason. Especially as, for example, the BBC internet actually crowds out other competitors.

Whenever people use "Britain's international reputation" as an argument, I am suspicious. What reputation? I do not hear foreigners coming up to me (and I have worked with many) talking about how wonderful Britain is because we have the BBC.

Maybe we should keep a very slimmed down Beeb which does genuine public service broadcasting. For instance, politics, quality documentaries etc. However, sport, light entertainment (a la Ross); there is just no need. So, maybe cut the budget by 80% and let it do what there is a reason for it to do,

'So roll it back the days when it just did radio?'

no, I quite like John Logie Beard's television. I think that should stay.

The BBC's review has accepted that Switch and Blast and some of its music radio stations should be cut. The BBC shouldn't try to be all things to all people, it should focus on a core philosophy of quality public service broadcasting and concentrate on things that commercial broadcasters do not provide.

"What reputation? I do not hear foreigners coming up to me (and I have worked with many) talking about how wonderful Britain is because we have the BBC."

Really? Because I've lived in several places around the world, and I work in the media and I do, all the time.

Totally with Spidookly on this. Like Crumpet, am also ex-BBC - and if you had any idea how hard the vast majority of staff work for well below the market rate you might not be rubbing your hands at the prospect of cuts. 18/20 hour days and 6am starts were a regular, accepted and expected part of the job when I was there.

'Yes Scaryteacher, its that easy isn't it? When you've been in a job you love for 20 years which has been your life, and there are loads of other jobs out there. How simple it all is. I'm kicking myself for not having your wisdom.'

No, I know it's not that easy, my dh along with every other serviceman is waiting to see today if they will still have a job. 1 in 5 jobs is going in the RN, BUT he has made the effort to look, apply and see what is there because the writing has been on the wall for a while. He has done 32 years in the RN, which is unlike the BBC, a lifestyle in which the job comes first, irrespective of any personal commitments and he is on call 24/7, so forgive me if my heart doesn't bleed for you.

If HM Forces are not protected and arguably defending the realm and national security is more important than 'Strictly' and 'Masterchef', then why should the BBC which is equally funded by the taxpayer avoid the pain? You will now say, 'Oh but they chose to join the Forces', well the same is true of everyone's job. It is always worth seeing what else is out there and taking steps to pre-empt what anyone could have seen was coming.

scaryteacher - well said.

Most BBC staff are not overpaid.