 |
The BBC should be a national treasure but instead it's become one more money tree for white middle class elites.
After the ridiculous high salaries the BBC is paying to what they call "the talent" were reported last week, the MSM have managed to divert the debate into one about gender issues.
While gender equality is important there are more important issues. Racism within the BBC is undoubtedly one, 15% of its employees are black, Asian or minority ethnic, yet the number of BAME people responsible for commissioning, producing and directing the programmes the BBC put out is just 1.5%.”
As Joseph Harker reported:
As Joseph Harker reported:
The lack of coverage of the race pay gap goes to a wider problem: the lack of minority voices at senior levels of the media, who can put these issues on the agenda. Race issues are simply not on the radar of most senior journalists; and though sexism is clearly an endemic problem at all levels of society, at least there are now female editors and columnists who can call it out when it happens ... By contrast, black voices in the national media are rare. We have the news and opinion filtered through white mouthpieces, so only the extreme, unequivocal cases of racism are ever given a hearing. We hear of ex-football manager Ron Atkinson calling a player a “fucking lazy thick nigger”, or of the ex-England captain John Terry calling another player a “fucking black cunt”; or even of the excesses of Katie Hopkins or Kelvin Mackenzie, or MPs using the N-word. But the daily, more subtle but far more pernicious racism – of discrimination in housing, in schools, in employment – goes largely uncommented on. It’s as if white editors don’t get racism unless it’s presented to them in sparkling 12-foot-high letters.
As Joseph pointed out you wouldn’t even need two hands to count the number of black columnists in the national press or black presenters and directors at the BBC. For something to be deemed racist therefore requires prior white approval and we all know the white middles class beneath the surface of supposed sophistication is the most racist class within the UK.
The wage rates of BBC talent are undoubtedly in sparkling 12-foot-high letters, whether the BBC will act on its inherent racism and class prejudice we will see.
Why does the BBC pay a disc jockey £2.2 million a year? How can BBC news presenters hope to emphasise with working class people when they receive a pay rate of upwards £0.55 million?
They cannot, and its this which explains the BBC's bias against working class people, whatever their colour or race.
Why does the BBC pay a disc jockey £2.2 million a year? How can BBC news presenters hope to emphasise with working class people when they receive a pay rate of upwards £0.55 million?
They cannot, and its this which explains the BBC's bias against working class people, whatever their colour or race.
The same goes for News and Current and affairs, the two presenters who over the last two years have attacked Jeremy Corbyn and his policies without mercy have a joint salary of half a million. Is it really a surprise they emphasise with millionaires like themselves? It's almost inevitable given the class prejudiced structure of the UK. They're well aware if they stepped out of their narrow class confines their careers will ultimately suffer, if not whither on the vine.
Some of the pay rates are almost laughable, Danny Dyer probably one the worst actors on TV receives £249K, for a portraying a monkey cockney, the type of which was last seen in the East-end of London circa 1970. Still you cannot blame the Popular boy for taking that lovely lump of wedge, as his Eastenders character Mick Cotton might say.
To justify these inflated salaries Tony Hall, (BBC director general) and the former Blairite minister James Purnell, (Director of Radio and Education), said they had no choice but to pay the market rate. In other words they parrot that old chestnut beloved by Banksters, tax dodgers and corporate chiselers - the market always knows best. Which given events since the great crash of 2008 has worn a tad thin.
If the so called talent were to no longer receiving such inflated salaries it would be impossible for the likes of Hall and Purnell to justify their own inflated salaries. (Hall (£450k, Purnell £300k, plus bungs, sorry gifts and hospitality).
If private media outlets are prepared to pay inflated salaries so what, surely the BBC has a different role to play in society than the Murdoch media and ITV, the more so in an age of austerity. Setting an example would be a start. If the so called talent ups and leaves there are always talented people available to follow in their shoes. Indeed it should be the BBC's raison d'être to nourish new talent not hang on to the old by paying inflated and unjustifiable salaries.
One of the main reasons the BBC is such a maudlin broadcaster is its refusal to experiment and give new comers a chance behind and in front of camera and mic. Thus we end up with the same overpaid faces appearing on our TV and radio.
Take Matt Baker the director general's current golden boy: you can hardly turn the TV on without him appearing. He is a master or everything and nothing. He started out in Blue Peter, presumably because he had a regional accent which were, and still are far and few between on the BBC. He was then fast tracked onto Country File, never mind the only experience he had of the countryside was eating the bacon brought in his dad's shop. Shortly after he became a presenter on the One Show. Then the floodgates opened and he presented The Gift (2015) Big Blue Live (2015 Wild Alaska Live (2017) appeared in Strictly Come Dancing and god know what else.
Some of the pay rates are almost laughable, Danny Dyer probably one the worst actors on TV receives £249K, for a portraying a monkey cockney, the type of which was last seen in the East-end of London circa 1970. Still you cannot blame the Popular boy for taking that lovely lump of wedge, as his Eastenders character Mick Cotton might say.
To justify these inflated salaries Tony Hall, (BBC director general) and the former Blairite minister James Purnell, (Director of Radio and Education), said they had no choice but to pay the market rate. In other words they parrot that old chestnut beloved by Banksters, tax dodgers and corporate chiselers - the market always knows best. Which given events since the great crash of 2008 has worn a tad thin.
If the so called talent were to no longer receiving such inflated salaries it would be impossible for the likes of Hall and Purnell to justify their own inflated salaries. (Hall (£450k, Purnell £300k, plus bungs, sorry gifts and hospitality).
If private media outlets are prepared to pay inflated salaries so what, surely the BBC has a different role to play in society than the Murdoch media and ITV, the more so in an age of austerity. Setting an example would be a start. If the so called talent ups and leaves there are always talented people available to follow in their shoes. Indeed it should be the BBC's raison d'être to nourish new talent not hang on to the old by paying inflated and unjustifiable salaries.
One of the main reasons the BBC is such a maudlin broadcaster is its refusal to experiment and give new comers a chance behind and in front of camera and mic. Thus we end up with the same overpaid faces appearing on our TV and radio.
Take Matt Baker the director general's current golden boy: you can hardly turn the TV on without him appearing. He is a master or everything and nothing. He started out in Blue Peter, presumably because he had a regional accent which were, and still are far and few between on the BBC. He was then fast tracked onto Country File, never mind the only experience he had of the countryside was eating the bacon brought in his dad's shop. Shortly after he became a presenter on the One Show. Then the floodgates opened and he presented The Gift (2015) Big Blue Live (2015 Wild Alaska Live (2017) appeared in Strictly Come Dancing and god know what else.
It's what the BBC do. Is it any wonder young people only rarely watch it today when front of camera and mic and behind, it's dominated by an elite whose lifestyles are light years away from their own. The BBC should be a national treasure, but instead it's become just one more money tree for the white middle class elites.
It's also worth noting the doyens of the BBC David Dimbleby and David Attenborough, so called national treasures, are not even in the list of top earners. Privatisation or as the BBC calls it outsourcing saw to that. Tony Hall could make this information available in the future by making the companies who are contracted to make shows like Question Time make it public or not gain contracts.
These so called national treasures along with other household names who appear in BBC programmes have set up companies to channel their earnings.
The BBC has admitted dozens of its star presenters are dodging full tax bills with a legal loophole. Thus BBC employees at the lower end of the pay scale in all probability pay a higher percentage of income tax than the national treasures.
Funny how no one in the MSM thought this worth mentioning when the BBC top pay scales were first released. Could it be because they two earn exalted salaries and are up to their necks in tax dodging schemes?
BBC Money Tree For White Middle Class
The BBC should be a national treasure but instead it's become one more money tree for white middle class elites.
After the ridiculous high salaries the BBC is paying to what they call "the talent" were reported last week, the MSM have managed to divert the debate into one about gender issues.
|
While gender equality is important there are more important issues. Racism within the BBC is undoubtedly one, 15% of its employees are black, Asian or minority ethnic, yet the number of BAME people responsible for commissioning, producing and directing the programmes the BBC put out is just 1.5%.”
As Joseph Harker reported:
As Joseph Harker reported:
The lack of coverage of the race pay gap goes to a wider problem: the lack of minority voices at senior levels of the media, who can put these issues on the agenda. Race issues are simply not on the radar of most senior journalists; and though sexism is clearly an endemic problem at all levels of society, at least there are now female editors and columnists who can call it out when it happens ... By contrast, black voices in the national media are rare. We have the news and opinion filtered through white mouthpieces, so only the extreme, unequivocal cases of racism are ever given a hearing. We hear of ex-football manager Ron Atkinson calling a player a “fucking lazy thick nigger”, or of the ex-England captain John Terry calling another player a “fucking black cunt”; or even of the excesses of Katie Hopkins or Kelvin Mackenzie, or MPs using the N-word. But the daily, more subtle but far more pernicious racism – of discrimination in housing, in schools, in employment – goes largely uncommented on. It’s as if white editors don’t get racism unless it’s presented to them in sparkling 12-foot-high letters.
As Joseph pointed out you wouldn’t even need two hands to count the number of black columnists in the national press or black presenters and directors at the BBC. For something to be deemed racist therefore requires prior white approval and we all know the white middles class beneath the surface of supposed sophistication is the most racist class within the UK.
The wage rates of BBC talent are undoubtedly in sparkling 12-foot-high letters, whether the BBC will act on its inherent racism and class prejudice we will see.
Why does the BBC pay a disc jockey £2.2 million a year? How can BBC news presenters hope to emphasise with working class people when they receive a pay rate of upwards £0.55 million?
They cannot, and its this which explains the BBC's bias against working class people, whatever their colour or race.
Why does the BBC pay a disc jockey £2.2 million a year? How can BBC news presenters hope to emphasise with working class people when they receive a pay rate of upwards £0.55 million?
They cannot, and its this which explains the BBC's bias against working class people, whatever their colour or race.
The same goes for News and Current and affairs, the two presenters who over the last two years have attacked Jeremy Corbyn and his policies without mercy have a joint salary of half a million. Is it really a surprise they emphasise with millionaires like themselves? It's almost inevitable given the class prejudiced structure of the UK. They're well aware if they stepped out of their narrow class confines their careers will ultimately suffer, if not whither on the vine.
Some of the pay rates are almost laughable, Danny Dyer probably one the worst actors on TV receives £249K, for a portraying a monkey cockney, the type of which was last seen in the East-end of London circa 1970. Still you cannot blame the Popular boy for taking that lovely lump of wedge, as his Eastenders character Mick Cotton might say.
To justify these inflated salaries Tony Hall, (BBC director general) and the former Blairite minister James Purnell, (Director of Radio and Education), said they had no choice but to pay the market rate. In other words they parrot that old chestnut beloved by Banksters, tax dodgers and corporate chiselers - the market always knows best. Which given events since the great crash of 2008 has worn a tad thin.
If the so called talent were to no longer receiving such inflated salaries it would be impossible for the likes of Hall and Purnell to justify their own inflated salaries. (Hall (£450k, Purnell £300k, plus bungs, sorry gifts and hospitality).
If private media outlets are prepared to pay inflated salaries so what, surely the BBC has a different role to play in society than the Murdoch media and ITV, the more so in an age of austerity. Setting an example would be a start. If the so called talent ups and leaves there are always talented people available to follow in their shoes. Indeed it should be the BBC's raison d'être to nourish new talent not hang on to the old by paying inflated and unjustifiable salaries.
One of the main reasons the BBC is such a maudlin broadcaster is its refusal to experiment and give new comers a chance behind and in front of camera and mic. Thus we end up with the same overpaid faces appearing on our TV and radio.
Take Matt Baker the director general's current golden boy: you can hardly turn the TV on without him appearing. He is a master or everything and nothing. He started out in Blue Peter, presumably because he had a regional accent which were, and still are far and few between on the BBC. He was then fast tracked onto Country File, never mind the only experience he had of the countryside was eating the bacon brought in his dad's shop. Shortly after he became a presenter on the One Show. Then the floodgates opened and he presented The Gift (2015) Big Blue Live (2015 Wild Alaska Live (2017) appeared in Strictly Come Dancing and god know what else.
Some of the pay rates are almost laughable, Danny Dyer probably one the worst actors on TV receives £249K, for a portraying a monkey cockney, the type of which was last seen in the East-end of London circa 1970. Still you cannot blame the Popular boy for taking that lovely lump of wedge, as his Eastenders character Mick Cotton might say.
To justify these inflated salaries Tony Hall, (BBC director general) and the former Blairite minister James Purnell, (Director of Radio and Education), said they had no choice but to pay the market rate. In other words they parrot that old chestnut beloved by Banksters, tax dodgers and corporate chiselers - the market always knows best. Which given events since the great crash of 2008 has worn a tad thin.
If the so called talent were to no longer receiving such inflated salaries it would be impossible for the likes of Hall and Purnell to justify their own inflated salaries. (Hall (£450k, Purnell £300k, plus bungs, sorry gifts and hospitality).
If private media outlets are prepared to pay inflated salaries so what, surely the BBC has a different role to play in society than the Murdoch media and ITV, the more so in an age of austerity. Setting an example would be a start. If the so called talent ups and leaves there are always talented people available to follow in their shoes. Indeed it should be the BBC's raison d'être to nourish new talent not hang on to the old by paying inflated and unjustifiable salaries.
One of the main reasons the BBC is such a maudlin broadcaster is its refusal to experiment and give new comers a chance behind and in front of camera and mic. Thus we end up with the same overpaid faces appearing on our TV and radio.
Take Matt Baker the director general's current golden boy: you can hardly turn the TV on without him appearing. He is a master or everything and nothing. He started out in Blue Peter, presumably because he had a regional accent which were, and still are far and few between on the BBC. He was then fast tracked onto Country File, never mind the only experience he had of the countryside was eating the bacon brought in his dad's shop. Shortly after he became a presenter on the One Show. Then the floodgates opened and he presented The Gift (2015) Big Blue Live (2015 Wild Alaska Live (2017) appeared in Strictly Come Dancing and god know what else.
It's what the BBC do. Is it any wonder young people only rarely watch it today when front of camera and mic and behind, it's dominated by an elite whose lifestyles are light years away from their own. The BBC should be a national treasure, but instead it's become just one more money tree for the white middle class elites.
It's also worth noting the doyens of the BBC David Dimbleby and David Attenborough, so called national treasures, are not even in the list of top earners. Privatisation or as the BBC calls it outsourcing saw to that. Tony Hall could make this information available in the future by making the companies who are contracted to make shows like Question Time make it public or not gain contracts.
These so called national treasures along with other household names who appear in BBC programmes have set up companies to channel their earnings.
The BBC has admitted dozens of its star presenters are dodging full tax bills with a legal loophole. Thus BBC employees at the lower end of the pay scale in all probability pay a higher percentage of income tax than the national treasures.
Funny how no one in the MSM thought this worth mentioning when the BBC top pay scales were first released. Could it be because they two earn exalted salaries and are up to their necks in tax dodging schemes?
No comments