Ross leaving the BBC

[Bob The Skutter]

I agree with Mark Thompson though, if they publish the amount they pay their staff, talent included, then the other channels will just know how much to outbid them by and they will lose people. Besides that if they start under-paying by industry standards they'll just end up with "new talent" who learn their trade with the BBC and then away to better paid positions with others.

I wouldn't deny the BBC should be a bit more transparent, but they need to be less gun shy and kneejerk in their responses, and have the balls to push it and just tell people to shut up, because at the end of the day by trying appeal to everyone they're going to end up doing nothing worthwhile at all.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

I used to think Kermode was a pretentious arse but the last few years I find I agree with him more and more-the man is a God!

That said, he can put his foot in it a few times. For instance, this time last year he famously stated that, having seen "Bride Wars" as the first film he had seen in 2009 and seeing how much he hated it, he feared what 2009 would have had to offer that he vowed that if he found 10 films worse than "Bride Wars" in 2009, he'd give up film criticism for good. It was a promise that several people called him on several times last year, and he did address the challenge and tried to keep his promise. "Bride Wars" eventually came in as his 8th worst, although given how scathing his review of it was at the time, I'm surprised he didn't consider "2012" as being worse.

 

[Starkers]

I agree with Mark Thompson though, if they publish the amount they pay their staff, talent included, then the other channels will just know how much to outbid them by and they will lose people. Besides that if they start under-paying by industry standards they'll just end up with "new talent" who learn their trade with the BBC and then away to better paid positions with others.

I wouldn't deny the BBC should be a bit more transparent, but they need to be less gun shy and kneejerk in their responses, and have the balls to push it and just tell people to shut up, because at the end of the day by trying appeal to everyone they're going to end up doing nothing worthwhile at all.

The salary issue has some validity, however its worth noting that the FOI act has exemptions that can be used to withold information like this. What the BBC have is an exemption above and beyond the exemptions available to every other publicy funded body. And so what if someone can earn more with ITV? Let them go to ITV then. The notion that good staff will be offered better deals elsewhere is a get out that could be used in any public industry to be honest, plus you have to wonder who these other stations are who are going to poach Ross and co? ITV are basically dying and you could say the same about C4/C5. Ok there's Sky and a multitude of other satellite channels but can Dave really pay that much?

Worth pointing as well that if Ross wanted more money all his agent would have to do is tell ITV what the BBC are paying and get them to up it. Celebrities are like anyone else, if they want to move for better paying jobs then they can and will do so.

 

[Starkers]

I used to think Kermode was a pretentious arse but the last few years I find I agree with him more and more-the man is a God!

That said, he can put his foot in it a few times. For instance, this time last year he famously stated that, having seen "Bride Wars" as the first film he had seen in 2009 and seeing how much he hated it, he feared what 2009 would have had to offer that he vowed that if he found 10 films worse than "Bride Wars" in 2009, he'd give up film criticism for good. It was a promise that several people called him on several times last year, and he did address the challenge and tried to keep his promise. "Bride Wars" eventually came in as his 8th worst, although given how scathing his review of it was at the time, I'm surprised he didn't consider "2012" as being worse.

Yeah he did put his foot in it a bit with that pledge

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I agree with Mark Thompson though, if they publish the amount they pay their staff, talent included, then the other channels will just know how much to outbid them by and they will lose people. Besides that if they start under-paying by industry standards they'll just end up with "new talent" who learn their trade with the BBC and then away to better paid positions with others.

I wouldn't deny the BBC should be a bit more transparent, but they need to be less gun shy and kneejerk in their responses, and have the balls to push it and just tell people to shut up, because at the end of the day by trying appeal to everyone they're going to end up doing nothing worthwhile at all.

The salary issue has some validity, however its worth noting that the FOI act has exemptions that can be used to withold information like this. What the BBC have is an exemption above and beyond the exemptions available to every other publicy funded body. And so what if someone can earn more with ITV? Let them go to ITV then. The notion that good staff will be offered better deals elsewhere is a get out that could be used in any public industry to be honest, plus you have to wonder who these other stations are who are going to poach Ross and co? ITV are basically dying and you could say the same about C4/C5. Ok there's Sky and a multitude of other satellite channels but can Dave really pay that much?

Worth pointing as well that if Ross wanted more money all his agent would have to do is tell ITV what the BBC are paying and get them to up it. Celebrities are like anyone else, if they want to move for better paying jobs then they can and will do so.

I'm not saying they should be exempt from FOI but I don't see why they should print what each individual gets paid as a matter of course. Not only will it add time and expense compiling the data to be published, but it'll give knowledge to competitors.

ITV dying doesn't stop them paying Simon Cowell £5m a year, or Ant & Dec £10m, if they think it will offer them an advantage then they will pay.

Jonathan Ross said not long ago he would gladly take a pay cut and it was never about the money. Various tabloids have some how manage to shift that to "he left because they wanted to give him a pay cut" or "The BBC were going to let him go, so he jumped before he was pushed."
Now I wouldn't be surprised if it was true that he jumped before he was pushed because since the whole "sachsgate" thing the BBC have become pussies and seem to give in at the slighted media pressure.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

^But that's a stupid complaint, because it wasn't £6m for hosting his chat show, it was £6m a year for hosting 2 TV shows and a radio show, plus producing fees for them. And Ross turned down jobs with other channels who were offering more so the BBC were paying less than he could have gotten elsewhere.
And the "inflation busting hike" wasn't to pay for "talent" it was to pay for switch over, which now the government want to keep that increase to pay for non-BBC stuff too. Besides that the next increase is going to be below inflation if I remember correctly.

How the hell is it a stupid complaint(Cheeky bugger), you genuinely think Ross or any so called celeb is worth 6 million a year, and for that what did Ross bring to the BBC for the 6 million that was could not have been done on a commercial TV that could somehow justify that fee, or some other cheaper celeb, whats next, the Lottery draw was licence money well spent because this could never be done on a commercial channel.

As for the licence fee the BBC had plans for it to rise by 2.3% above inflation every year so that by 2013 that Licence fee would cost a wallet busting £187, and their excuse for such a rise...original programming, well that's 18 million well spent on original programming then on one so called celeb in the last 3 years, fortunately that was scuppered......

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^But that's a stupid complaint, because it wasn't £6m for hosting his chat show, it was £6m a year for hosting 2 TV shows and a radio show, plus producing fees for them. And Ross turned down jobs with other channels who were offering more so the BBC were paying less than he could have gotten elsewhere.
And the "inflation busting hike" wasn't to pay for "talent" it was to pay for switch over, which now the government want to keep that increase to pay for non-BBC stuff too. Besides that the next increase is going to be below inflation if I remember correctly.

How the hell is it a stupid complaint(Cheeky bugger), you genuinely think Ross or any so called celeb is worth 6 million a year, and for that what did Ross bring to the BBC for the 6 million that was could not have been done on a commercial TV that could somehow justify that fee, or some other cheaper celeb, lets take the lottery draw...whats next, the Lottery draw was licence money well spent because this could never be done on a commercial channel.

As for the licence fee the BBC had plans for it to rise by 2.3% above inflation every year so that by 2013 that Licence fee would cost a wallet busting £187, and their excuse for such a rise...original programming, well that's 18 million well spent on original programming then on one so called celeb in the last 3 years, fortunately that was scuppered......

Because they were expected to fund other stuff too, which since they're funding has meant cuts to the news and current affairs output, as well as children's (which they've reversed and had to find the money from somewhere else).

I'm not saying it couldn't have been done on any other network but the BBC, but it's popular and brings in the audience. If they didn't do popular programming then the complaint would be they spend tons of money on stuff no one watches, just like BBC Three and Four when in fact they're fairly popular just not with all age ranges.

And it isn't £18m on 1 celeb in 3 years, it's £18m on his shows. He's producer, presenter and owner of the production company of his chat show.

I don't think anyone is "worth" that much, not footballers, not bankers, not celebs, but the reality is that people in these fields get paid that sort of money, whether I like it or not, and I'm not going to complain that they happened to pay him a wage which was less than he could have got elsewhere.

 

[Starkers]

I agree with Mark Thompson though, if they publish the amount they pay their staff, talent included, then the other channels will just know how much to outbid them by and they will lose people. Besides that if they start under-paying by industry standards they'll just end up with "new talent" who learn their trade with the BBC and then away to better paid positions with others.

I wouldn't deny the BBC should be a bit more transparent, but they need to be less gun shy and kneejerk in their responses, and have the balls to push it and just tell people to shut up, because at the end of the day by trying appeal to everyone they're going to end up doing nothing worthwhile at all.

The salary issue has some validity, however its worth noting that the FOI act has exemptions that can be used to withold information like this. What the BBC have is an exemption above and beyond the exemptions available to every other publicy funded body. And so what if someone can earn more with ITV? Let them go to ITV then. The notion that good staff will be offered better deals elsewhere is a get out that could be used in any public industry to be honest, plus you have to wonder who these other stations are who are going to poach Ross and co? ITV are basically dying and you could say the same about C4/C5. Ok there's Sky and a multitude of other satellite channels but can Dave really pay that much?

Worth pointing as well that if Ross wanted more money all his agent would have to do is tell ITV what the BBC are paying and get them to up it. Celebrities are like anyone else, if they want to move for better paying jobs then they can and will do so.

I'm not saying they should be exempt from FOI but I don't see why they should print what each individual gets paid as a matter of course. Not only will it add time and expense compiling the data to be published, but it'll give knowledge to competitors.

So by the same token MP's expenses shouldn't be routinely released either? And again I come back to what competative advantage? As if ITV won't know what people are earning.

ITV dying doesn't stop them paying Simon Cowell £5m a year, or Ant & Dec £10m, if they think it will offer them an advantage then they will pay.

[Kirk] Let them die [/kirk] And let them pay the money. At the end of the day they're paying it out of their own funds not the public purse. Just because they pay out ridiculous money does not mean the BBC have to as well. Should the NHS pay money to compete with BUPA?

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the BBC become a third world broadcaster, but I would suggest some kind of salary cap, and if that means they lose the odd big celeb then I don't see what the major problem is. In footballing parlance I'd let ITV etc be the Chelseas of the TV world, but BBC can be Arsenal, a top team run along exceptionally good business lines.

Jonathan Ross said not long ago he would gladly take a pay cut and it was never about the money. Various tabloids have some how manage to shift that to "he left because they wanted to give him a pay cut" or "The BBC were going to let him go, so he jumped before he was pushed."
Now I wouldn't be surprised if it was true that he jumped before he was pushed because since the whole "sachsgate" thing the BBC have become pussies and seem to give in at the slighted media pressure.

Lets be honest, if you were Ross wouldn't you have said that as well about a pay cut? I mean seriously only a moron would do anything else. And maybe the BBC were going to push him because he isn't actually as popular as he once was, he's getting tired and stale and basically isn't worth what he's want paying, even with a pay cut.

 

[Jax]

The fee should be reduced theres no doubt about that and BBC can still afford a drop if they sort out there pay structure from the very top to bottom, a few of the brass need firing and the government has the power to do so.

I feel BBC should get rid of BBC 4 when we switch to Digital across the country and they coould transfer BBC 4 shows to BBC 3 and some BBC 3 shows to BBC 2 theres plenty of room when you cut down on repeats. Some Radio channels can merge, BBC 1 can switch over to merge with News 24 at midnight instead of 2am plus BBC 2 could close at midnight or 1am because lets face it who watches TV on BBC at those times. I wouldn't be against a handful of ads inbetween shows (not in the middle of one) to raise a little more funds. Also does every radio station need to be 24/7? as well...

BBC could easily save a lot of money if they tried not too mention less money spent on BBC logos and replacing lightbulbs.

 

[Captain Shaw]

God Michael McIntyre is really a Marmite personalty.
As for Pay i think one way to keep it down would be to stop offering gold hand shake deals.
I remember read that When Alexander Armstrong wanted to do count down the BBC told him if he took it he would no longer be working for them stuff like this needs to stop.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

The salary issue has some validity, however its worth noting that the FOI act has exemptions that can be used to withold information like this. What the BBC have is an exemption above and beyond the exemptions available to every other publicy funded body. And so what if someone can earn more with ITV? Let them go to ITV then. The notion that good staff will be offered better deals elsewhere is a get out that could be used in any public industry to be honest, plus you have to wonder who these other stations are who are going to poach Ross and co? ITV are basically dying and you could say the same about C4/C5. Ok there's Sky and a multitude of other satellite channels but can Dave really pay that much?

Worth pointing as well that if Ross wanted more money all his agent would have to do is tell ITV what the BBC are paying and get them to up it. Celebrities are like anyone else, if they want to move for better paying jobs then they can and will do so.

I'm not saying they should be exempt from FOI but I don't see why they should print what each individual gets paid as a matter of course. Not only will it add time and expense compiling the data to be published, but it'll give knowledge to competitors.

So by the same token MP's expenses shouldn't be routinely released either? And again I come back to what competative advantage? As if ITV won't know what people are earning.

ITV dying doesn't stop them paying Simon Cowell £5m a year, or Ant & Dec £10m, if they think it will offer them an advantage then they will pay.

[Kirk] Let them die [/kirk] And let them pay the money. At the end of the day they're paying it out of their own funds not the public purse. Just because they pay out ridiculous money does not mean the BBC have to as well. Should the NHS pay money to compete with BUPA?

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the BBC become a third world broadcaster, but I would suggest some kind of salary cap, and if that means they lose the odd big celeb then I don't see what the major problem is. In footballing parlance I'd let ITV etc be the Chelseas of the TV world, but BBC can be Arsenal, a top team run along exceptionally good business lines.

Jonathan Ross said not long ago he would gladly take a pay cut and it was never about the money. Various tabloids have some how manage to shift that to "he left because they wanted to give him a pay cut" or "The BBC were going to let him go, so he jumped before he was pushed."
Now I wouldn't be surprised if it was true that he jumped before he was pushed because since the whole "sachsgate" thing the BBC have become pussies and seem to give in at the slighted media pressure.

Lets be honest, if you were Ross wouldn't you have said that as well about a pay cut? I mean seriously only a moron would do anything else. And maybe the BBC were going to push him because he isn't actually as popular as he once was, he's getting tired and stale and basically isn't worth what he's want paying, even with a pay cut.

It's nothing like with MPs, you don't have a competitive political structure where you're going to get the best politicians syphoned off in to "private politics" because they pay better.

Like I said I'm not suggesting the BBC should be more open and wiser in their spending, but it does offer an advantage to competitors when they just know the talents pay without having to negotiate at all. Come the end of someone's contract they can just offer a better deal without having to even having to ask them, knowing the BBC won't be able to pay more because it will be under public scrutiny.
Some will moan the BBC spent so much money to keep them, or alternatively complain they didn't fight to keep a good presenter and a good show.

And to be honest I don't actually care all that much about Ross going, I hardly watch Friday Night, I do like Film because I often agree with his review, and I don't listen to his radio show at all, so I don't really care whether he goes or stays, but it just seems to me like this is another step in the pussification of the BBC. Letting him go because it'll make life easier for them, give people one less thing to moan about, but they'll just find other things for them to moan about and the BBC will just tone down more and more and avoid more and more controversy.
When we end up with (even more) bland and boring TV we'll all be complaining the BBC are shit, but we'll also be the reason they are.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

^^^Where is this wonderful world were the BBC and its programming are somehow leaps and bounds above the competition, i don't see it, they offer the same as the commercial channels minus the adverts, soaps, news, a plethra of cheap ass day time TV, documentaries, and the occasional drama in all its variations, were is this wonderful BBC that people will be moaning about losing when ludicrously over paid celebs leave them?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^^^Where is this wonderful world were the BBC and its programming are somehow leaps and bounds above the competition, i don't see it, they offer the same as the commercial channels minus the adverts, soaps, news, a plethra of cheap ass day time TV, documentaries, and the occasional drama in all its variations, were is this wonderful BBC that people will be moaning about losing when ludicrously over paid celebs leave them?

I find far, far more shows to watch on BBC than I do anywhere else, and almost everything I watch on other channels is an import. Pretty much everything I've started watching on ITV in recent years has been cancelled, and Basically the only things Channel 4 have now are Skins, Shameless and Misfits, of which 2 are E4 shows. They do occasionally do good shows though.

Again, maybe it's ludicrously overpaid compared to most people but it's hardly an unheard of amount in the industry.
I don't think anyone deserves to be paid that much but the fact is unless you want the entire industry to change then there are going to be people paid that sort of money.

 

[Kibbin]

I’m not against Rossy going, haven’t liked him for a while now and yes probably before the Sashgate thing which I didn’t really care about to be honest and going of how many were listening and complained at the time neither do many others, they just like complaining like with the Doctor’s ginger comment.
My main gripe is the list released of who they are likely to replace Ross with, I can’t stand any they seem to be lining up for his Friday slot and the ones mentioned for his Saturday show are already lined up with shows and wish type stuff.

As for Kermode, he’s a snobby git, but he’s not bad at what he does. We’ve had our disagreements but then I’d be suspicious of any critic who agreed with me a hundred percent.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Well, Charlie Brooker (http://twitter.com/charltonbrooker) has tweeted his support for Mark Kermode to take over as Film 2010 host:

Re: all yr Film 2010 tweets. Flattering, but Kermode for FIlm 2010 is both a shoe-in and right.

And there's a Facebook group on the subject: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&ref=search&gid=263323440038

Me? I hope if he does get the job, it doesn't mean the end of the Friday afternoon Wittertainment™ sessions on the radio - he and Simon Mayo are a great double-act.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^I keep hearing I should listen to that, but I always dislike Kermode's attitude whenever I've seen him, so it puts me off. Like the whole "This is the first video game I've played, I hope I never play another" thing, like videogames are beneath him or something.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

^I keep hearing I should listen to that, but I always dislike Kermode's attitude whenever I've seen him, so it puts me off. Like the whole "This is the first video game I've played, I hope I never play another" thing, like videogames are beneath him or something.

If it makes you feel better, he says the same thing about television programmes, and he admits that his knowledge of video games and TV isn't that great, so his opinions on those matters are admittedly less valid than, say, Charlie Brooker. (He has, in fact, referred to Charlie Brooker once or twice as a better judge on those things than him.) Recently, however, his stance on television has mellowed a little, to the point that he has accepted it as a culturally significant medium on par with film.

The radio show is worth a listen for a laugh, if only for his banter with Mayo. (It's just not the same with regular stand-ins Andrew Collins or Colin Murray or Richard Bacon in the studio.)

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^I keep hearing I should listen to that, but I always dislike Kermode's attitude whenever I've seen him, so it puts me off. Like the whole "This is the first video game I've played, I hope I never play another" thing, like videogames are beneath him or something.

If it makes you feel better, he says the same thing about television programmes, and he admits that his knowledge of video games and TV isn't that great, so his opinions on those matters are admittedly less valid than, say, Charlie Brooker. (He has, in fact, referred to Charlie Brooker once or twice as a better judge on those things than him.) Recently, however, his stance on television has mellowed a little, to the point that he has accepted it as a culturally significant medium on par with film.

The radio show is worth a listen for a laugh, if only for his banter with Mayo. (It's just not the same with regular stand-ins Andrew Collins or Colin Murray or Richard Bacon in the studio.)

See, that just makes me like him even less. Writing off not just entire genres, but entire mediums as beneath his interest just makes him sound even more of a cultural snob. I personally believe at this point good television is far and away a better medium than good film, because it has the opportunity to get so much deeper in to story, motivation and character than film ever has, but I wouldn't write off film because it's short and shallow.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

^I keep hearing I should listen to that, but I always dislike Kermode's attitude whenever I've seen him, so it puts me off. Like the whole "This is the first video game I've played, I hope I never play another" thing, like videogames are beneath him or something.

If it makes you feel better, he says the same thing about television programmes, and he admits that his knowledge of video games and TV isn't that great, so his opinions on those matters are admittedly less valid than, say, Charlie Brooker. (He has, in fact, referred to Charlie Brooker once or twice as a better judge on those things than him.) Recently, however, his stance on television has mellowed a little, to the point that he has accepted it as a culturally significant medium on par with film.

The radio show is worth a listen for a laugh, if only for his banter with Mayo. (It's just not the same with regular stand-ins Andrew Collins or Colin Murray or Richard Bacon in the studio.)

See, that just makes me like him even less. Writing off not just entire genres, but entire mediums as beneath his interest just makes him sound even more of a cultural snob. I personally believe at this point good television is far and away a better medium than good film, because it has the opportunity to get so much deeper in to story, motivation and character than film ever has, but I wouldn't write off film because it's short and shallow.

On the other hand, for viewers of good television to appreciate that depth in story and character, it requires a level of commitment that good film doesn't need at all, which is why some people are put off by the last decade's propensity for long drawn-out television sagas (some of them even supplemented by online material, although some cult movies of this last decade have exploited the online medium too) where if you don't watch from episode one then you're completely, er, "Lost."

I'm just glad Kermode is honest with himself by not pretending to be an expert in a field he doesn't know much about, even though it makes him look old-fashioned and culturally elitist, but I've not really known him to explicitly denigrate a medium he doesn't know much about for the sake of it (hence his bowing to other experts to do that job for him). However, he does occasionally rant about how certain films (even films he likes) would be better off on television rather than the cinema, recent examples being "The Queen" and "The Simpsons Movie" but seeing as he claims he doesn't watch much TV as he'd like to, I would dispute his reasoning behind it too (his reasoning for the aforementioned examples is that they both have their roots in the television world and aesthetically would work just as well - if not better - on the small screen), some of which is flawed. One film he considered the worst of 2009, the documentary "Charles Dickens's England" he disliked for many reasons, one of which he felt it should have just been a small screen release, but the fact that it was on the big screen meant it was subject to his jurisdiction, and he tore it apart.

But as a film critic he knows his stuff. Mostly.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Don't get me wrong, it's good that he's aware enough to actually defend television and videogaming in the roundabout way of saying "My views aren't particularly valid because I don't actually like these things".

But at the same time he seems to dislike things on general principle, rather than on actually experiencing them, or even disliking movies based on genre rather than the actual film. But I guess I'd have to listen/watch of his reviews to get a more rounded view of that, because all I've really seen are the odd Newsnight Review and Film review of the year type shows.