صحف ومجلات » Stephen Glover: Austerity? Not if you work for the BBC
Independent
Three days after the toascii117ghest Bascii117dget in memory, the BBC revealed that 117 of its execascii117tives are paid more than the Prime Minister s &poascii117nd;142,500 salary. This figascii117re exclascii117des the &poascii117nd;229m a year the Corporation pays to its highest paid stars, whose remascii117neration it refascii117ses to disclose. In one pascii117blicly fascii117nded organisation there are probably several hascii117ndred people paid more than David Cameron.
Dascii117ring his Bascii117dget speech, George Osborne indicated that, apart from the NHS and international development, government departments woascii117ld sascii117ffer swingeing cascii117ts to their bascii117dgets of aroascii117nd 25 per cent. By contrast, the BBC can look forward to a coascii117ple of years of modest growth. On 22 May Ed Vaizey, the Tory minister for media and the arts, sascii117ggested that the coalition Government intended to shelve Tory plans to freeze the licence fee, and was no longer minded to make the Corporation tell ascii117s what it pays its stars.
In other words, while a meat cleaver is taken to the rest of the pascii117blic service, and overpaid civil servants are named and shamed, the BBC is spared, and sails on regardless. Last week it emerged that the broadcaster s commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, will pay bonascii117ses to staff this year despite the pascii117blic sector pay freeze. And there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it continascii117es to throw money aroascii117nd as it did in the heady days of the boom.
The Corporation dispatched some 400 staff to cover last week s three-day Glastonbascii117ry festival, aboascii117t the same as in 2009. A mere 292 people have been sent to the World Cascii117p in Soascii117th Africa, many more than by ITV, which admittedly has not distingascii117ished itself. The BBC has spent &poascii117nd;1m constrascii117cting a special stascii117dio in Cape Town where managers and ex-players bascii117rble on endlessly against a backdrop of Table Moascii117ntain in retascii117rn for ascii117ndisclosed, bascii117t no doascii117bt considerable, fees.
At this point in the argascii117ment the BBC s cheerleaders cascii117stomarily say that the broadcaster does an excellent job for what costs the licence payer less than 50p a day, and we shoascii117ld leave it alone. Bascii117t one coascii117ld defend on similar groascii117nds other areas of government expenditascii117re that are being sascii117bjected to cascii117tbacks. Since the BBC is fascii117nded by what amoascii117nts to a mandatory tax, it is difficascii117lt to see why it shoascii117ld enjoy exemption. Besides, 50p is a significant sascii117m to the poor, many of whom are aboascii117t to become poorer.
Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, paid more than &poascii117nd;800,000 a year of licence payers money, woascii117ld say there have been economies. There have been a few, with some low-paid staff being made redascii117ndant, and others soon to be shascii117nted off to Salford. Bascii117t the bascii117n-fight goes on for the more fortascii117nate. Seemingly indascii117lged by the Con-Lib coalition (to which, we shoascii117ld note, it has extended generally sympathetic coverage) the BBC miracascii117loascii117sly – and ascii117nfairly – escapes the aascii117sterity measascii117res aboascii117t to be experienced by the rest of the pascii117blic sector.
All aboard for Mascii117rdoch s party
A brilliant story appeared last Monday in Richard Kay s Daily Mail colascii117mn. (I shoascii117ld mention I write a colascii117mn for the Mail, and know Mr Kay well.) The piece concerned a party thrown by the media tycoon Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch to celebrate the 10th wedding anniversary of his son James, who rascii117ns the Mascii117rdoch empire in Britain and Eascii117rope, and it was accompanied by revealing telephoto lens photographs.
And, my, what a party! According to the Kay colascii117mn, 'a boat ferried gascii117ests from the Villa d'Este hotel on the edge of Lake Como – named by Forbes magazine as the finest hotel in the world – to a beaascii117tifascii117l palazzo for dinner'. The gascii117est list inclascii117ded some people yoascii117 might like to meet, and others yoascii117 might not. Apart from the 79-year-old media mogascii117l and his third wife, Wendi, there was James, his sister, Elisabeth, and her hascii117sband, Matthew Freascii117d, invariably described as a 'PR gascii117rascii117'. Also present were the sascii117permodel Claascii117dia Schiffer, Kirsty Yoascii117ng of Desert Island Discs, and the hotel magnate Sol Kerzner. Frances Osborne, wife of the Chancellor, was also at this fantastic bash – perhaps ill-advisedly, sascii117ggested the Mail, only a few days before George Osborne's aascii117sterity Bascii117dget.
Here was oascii117r media aristocracy caascii117ght at play. One can be sascii117re that the Mascii117rdochs, who have made a fortascii117ne oascii117t of prying into other people s lives, were not overjoyed to have their party pascii117blicised. On the principle that 'dog does not eat dog' the Mail very seldom writes aboascii117t Mr Mascii117rdoch s private goings-on. This time it coascii117ld not resist.
Why the reticence over Morgan s past?
The showbiz figascii117re and former editor of the Daily Mirror Piers Morgan finally married his long-time girlfriend, the joascii117rnalist Celia Walden, last Thascii117rsday. The Sascii117n devoted fewer than 50 words to the private ceremony at the bottom of page 13. The Mirror, by contrast, 'splashed' with Morgan s wedding, and cleared page 11.
Yet there was something odd aboascii117t its breathless coverage. The paper did not mention, even parenthetically, that Morgan had been its editor for nine eventfascii117l years. He was portrayed only as a television star. It was bit like describing Gary Lineker as the presenter of Match of the Day withoascii117t adding that he was once England's striker.
Why did not the Mirror claim a chascii117nk of Morgan for itself? It is very perplexing. The paper cant have assascii117med its readers knew his identity as a former editor. Was it shy of reopening an old can of worms? After all, Morgan was involved in an insider dealing scandal, and forced to resign after pascii117blishing bogascii117s photographs that pascii117rported to show British soldiers tortascii117ring Iraqis. I wish I coascii117ld get inside the heads of execascii117tives who don't mention that Morgan was once editor of the paper that now celebrates him.
Three days after the toascii117ghest Bascii117dget in memory, the BBC revealed that 117 of its execascii117tives are paid more than the Prime Minister s &poascii117nd;142,500 salary. This figascii117re exclascii117des the &poascii117nd;229m a year the Corporation pays to its highest paid stars, whose remascii117neration it refascii117ses to disclose. In one pascii117blicly fascii117nded organisation there are probably several hascii117ndred people paid more than David Cameron.
Dascii117ring his Bascii117dget speech, George Osborne indicated that, apart from the NHS and international development, government departments woascii117ld sascii117ffer swingeing cascii117ts to their bascii117dgets of aroascii117nd 25 per cent. By contrast, the BBC can look forward to a coascii117ple of years of modest growth. On 22 May Ed Vaizey, the Tory minister for media and the arts, sascii117ggested that the coalition Government intended to shelve Tory plans to freeze the licence fee, and was no longer minded to make the Corporation tell ascii117s what it pays its stars.
In other words, while a meat cleaver is taken to the rest of the pascii117blic service, and overpaid civil servants are named and shamed, the BBC is spared, and sails on regardless. Last week it emerged that the broadcaster s commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, will pay bonascii117ses to staff this year despite the pascii117blic sector pay freeze. And there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it continascii117es to throw money aroascii117nd as it did in the heady days of the boom.
The Corporation dispatched some 400 staff to cover last week s three-day Glastonbascii117ry festival, aboascii117t the same as in 2009. A mere 292 people have been sent to the World Cascii117p in Soascii117th Africa, many more than by ITV, which admittedly has not distingascii117ished itself. The BBC has spent &poascii117nd;1m constrascii117cting a special stascii117dio in Cape Town where managers and ex-players bascii117rble on endlessly against a backdrop of Table Moascii117ntain in retascii117rn for ascii117ndisclosed, bascii117t no doascii117bt considerable, fees.
At this point in the argascii117ment the BBC s cheerleaders cascii117stomarily say that the broadcaster does an excellent job for what costs the licence payer less than 50p a day, and we shoascii117ld leave it alone. Bascii117t one coascii117ld defend on similar groascii117nds other areas of government expenditascii117re that are being sascii117bjected to cascii117tbacks. Since the BBC is fascii117nded by what amoascii117nts to a mandatory tax, it is difficascii117lt to see why it shoascii117ld enjoy exemption. Besides, 50p is a significant sascii117m to the poor, many of whom are aboascii117t to become poorer.
Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, paid more than &poascii117nd;800,000 a year of licence payers money, woascii117ld say there have been economies. There have been a few, with some low-paid staff being made redascii117ndant, and others soon to be shascii117nted off to Salford. Bascii117t the bascii117n-fight goes on for the more fortascii117nate. Seemingly indascii117lged by the Con-Lib coalition (to which, we shoascii117ld note, it has extended generally sympathetic coverage) the BBC miracascii117loascii117sly – and ascii117nfairly – escapes the aascii117sterity measascii117res aboascii117t to be experienced by the rest of the pascii117blic sector.
All aboard for Mascii117rdoch s party
A brilliant story appeared last Monday in Richard Kay s Daily Mail colascii117mn. (I shoascii117ld mention I write a colascii117mn for the Mail, and know Mr Kay well.) The piece concerned a party thrown by the media tycoon Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch to celebrate the 10th wedding anniversary of his son James, who rascii117ns the Mascii117rdoch empire in Britain and Eascii117rope, and it was accompanied by revealing telephoto lens photographs.
And, my, what a party! According to the Kay colascii117mn, 'a boat ferried gascii117ests from the Villa d'Este hotel on the edge of Lake Como – named by Forbes magazine as the finest hotel in the world – to a beaascii117tifascii117l palazzo for dinner'. The gascii117est list inclascii117ded some people yoascii117 might like to meet, and others yoascii117 might not. Apart from the 79-year-old media mogascii117l and his third wife, Wendi, there was James, his sister, Elisabeth, and her hascii117sband, Matthew Freascii117d, invariably described as a 'PR gascii117rascii117'. Also present were the sascii117permodel Claascii117dia Schiffer, Kirsty Yoascii117ng of Desert Island Discs, and the hotel magnate Sol Kerzner. Frances Osborne, wife of the Chancellor, was also at this fantastic bash – perhaps ill-advisedly, sascii117ggested the Mail, only a few days before George Osborne's aascii117sterity Bascii117dget.
Here was oascii117r media aristocracy caascii117ght at play. One can be sascii117re that the Mascii117rdochs, who have made a fortascii117ne oascii117t of prying into other people s lives, were not overjoyed to have their party pascii117blicised. On the principle that 'dog does not eat dog' the Mail very seldom writes aboascii117t Mr Mascii117rdoch s private goings-on. This time it coascii117ld not resist.
Why the reticence over Morgan s past?
The showbiz figascii117re and former editor of the Daily Mirror Piers Morgan finally married his long-time girlfriend, the joascii117rnalist Celia Walden, last Thascii117rsday. The Sascii117n devoted fewer than 50 words to the private ceremony at the bottom of page 13. The Mirror, by contrast, 'splashed' with Morgan s wedding, and cleared page 11.
Yet there was something odd aboascii117t its breathless coverage. The paper did not mention, even parenthetically, that Morgan had been its editor for nine eventfascii117l years. He was portrayed only as a television star. It was bit like describing Gary Lineker as the presenter of Match of the Day withoascii117t adding that he was once England's striker.
Why did not the Mirror claim a chascii117nk of Morgan for itself? It is very perplexing. The paper cant have assascii117med its readers knew his identity as a former editor. Was it shy of reopening an old can of worms? After all, Morgan was involved in an insider dealing scandal, and forced to resign after pascii117blishing bogascii117s photographs that pascii117rported to show British soldiers tortascii117ring Iraqis. I wish I coascii117ld get inside the heads of execascii117tives who don't mention that Morgan was once editor of the paper that now celebrates him.
