The BBC has been urged by ministers to end the culture of “fat cat” pay for top presenters or risk cuts to its £3.4 billion a year of public funding.

 

Andy Burnham, the culture secretary, has issued a warning that the seven-figure contracts given to stars such as Jonathan Ross are undermining licence fee payers’ confidence in the broadcaster.

 

Burnham is understood to have told Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, that the corporation needed to show “sensitivity and an awareness of where the public are”. Ministers believe the recession has fuelled hostility to the elite presenters who are insulated from the economic downturn.

 

Ross, who is on an £18m three-year contract, was last week suspended without pay for three months over obscene telephone calls made to Andrew Sachs, the Fawlty Towers actor, during a Radio 2 show. The row puts BBC chiefs in an awkward position. They are keen to hang on to Ross, but they cannot renegotiate his salary until his contract comes up for renewal next year.

 

Ross, 47, is planning to “reinvent” himself during his enforced absence and will have to curb the lewd behaviour that has made him such a controversial figure. “He’ll come back as a different act,” said a source.

 

Sir Michael Parkinson, the veteran chat show host, attributed Ross’s behaviour to a “fit of madness”. He said: “Jonathan should have more oil in his lamp, frankly - more sense. He’s very good at his job but he’s given to fits of madness now and again and I think he had one on this occasion.”

 

A source close to Burnham said: “Andy is by instinct a friend of the BBC and would not dream of undermining its oper-ational independence. But if it is going to make a case for the licence fee, the BBC needs to show a certain sensitivity and an awareness of where the public are. He believes it will be harder to argue the BBC’s corner unless it is seen to be tackling the salary culture.”

 

Burnham spoke to Lyons about the problem of star salaries before the scandal broke and remains concerned.

 

Figures obtained by the News of the World under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the BBC's top 50 highest paid executives earn up to £14.3m a year between them; 50 managers earned more than £190,000 last year, with Mark Thompson, the director-gener-al, on a package of £816,000.

 

The corporation faces a political backlash after the lewd phone call scandal involving Ross and Russell Brand. The row led to Brand quitting the BBC and also claimed the scalp of Lesley Douglas, controller of Radio 2.

 

Thompson said that Douglas had been made aware of “key parts” of the offensive messages left on Sachs’s answerphone, but had failed to prevent the prerecorded show being broadcast.

 

Ross is the highest paid BBC presenter but Graham Norton has reportedly signed a £5m deal over two years A BBC spokesman said last night: We fully appreciate that to the general public these are very large salaries but we can't just go and cut these people’s salaries because we are in a recession; they have contracts." The Tories may chop the licence fee by about £6 a year if they win the next election. Some would like to see deeper cuts to the BBC’s budget.

 

Lord Carter, the communications minister, is reviewing the future of broadcasting. His report could recommend “top-slicing” the licence fee of £139.50 a year to subsidise other broadcasters such as Channel 4 after 2012.

 

Source: Sunday Times

 

Should the licence fee either be abolished or reduced to stop massive grotesque salaries to so-called stars and BBC top employees?

no, the licence fee should go towards quality programmes, dont cut it, just direct the revenue to the best use. ross etc are overpaid.

no, the licence fee should go towards quality programmes, dont cut it, just direct the revenue to the best use. ross etc are overpaid.

 

Richard (Thisispop) does make the claim over on The Lounge that most of the money Ross receives goes into his production company.... I'm not sure how convinced I am of that... And even if true, considering the absolute cr@p Ross produces, it's hardly money well spent in any case is it....? :lol:

 

I agree in principle though, the Licence Fee is a good thing, it shouldn't be undermined just because of the one or two overindulged idiots who produce rubbish, the bigger picture is that the Beeb does do FAR better programming than the likes of ITV, Sky or Channel 5, especially where Drama and the Arts is concerned... Channel 4 gives the Beeb a good run on a fair few things though, and Channel 4 News is, I feel, superior to BBC News....

 

Put it this way, you pay ONCE a year for Beeb, whereas you pay MONTHLY to Murdoch or Branson..... You pay more to Murdoch and Branson in a year than you do to the BBC.....

 

I'm all for the TV license, I fail to see why people think it's so bad, I think because it's because it's called the 'TV' license that people get so worked up about it saying they never watch the BBC. I assume these people never listen to the vast array of National and Local BBC radio stations and never read the BBC websites which I find are far better for news, sport and everything else they cover than anyone else is.

 

If people are fine watching ITV and following the news through Sky then quite frankly they deserve to feel incensed by having to pay a license fee. :puke:

Curbing salaries is the politics of envy

 

TV is about ratings and if the likes of Ross or any other presenters are going to win the ratings war for the BBC then they are entitled to be rewarded accordingly, in order to attract the best you have to pay more than the rival networks and if Ross would get 17m from Sky or C4 then the BBC if they want him have to pay £18m, its market forces

 

I don't rate Ross particularly but I don't begrudge him his salary

Curbing salaries is the politics of envy

 

TV is about ratings and if the likes of Ross or any other presenters are going to win the ratings war for the BBC then they are entitled to be rewarded accordingly, in order to attract the best you have to pay more than the rival networks and if Ross would get 17m from Sky or C4 then the BBC if they want him have to pay £18m, its market forces

 

Saying it's "market forces" is just a feeble excuse to justify capitalist greed... We're ALL being told that we have to "tighten our belts", well, sorry, but that applies also to the likes of Woss and all the other overpaid, overindulged "celebs" out there... They are a greedy, detestable bunch to a man or woman to be honest, and they simply do NOT earn their money. People like you make me puke Craig, you defend the likes of Ross and then begrudge the average working man a decent living wage to live off of... Where's your support for the country's firemen, teachers, doctors, nurses....? They are FAR more deserving cases than a prick who talks sh"te on radio or TV or some b/astard in the City who makes a profit off of destroying people's livlihoods... Or indeed corrupt and inept politicians who bleed us all dry... It really is time for a change in this country...

 

Paying £17 million to Johnathan Ross is a ridiculous concept, especially given that there are probably newer, younger, fresher, far more talented people out there who could probably run rings round Ross who dont get the breaks because they dont have the "right" connections or the access to resources because the resources are being allocated to feed Ross' bank account....

 

Why do you think Hollywood are casting cheaper actors like James McAvoy to star in the latest Hollywood blockbusters....?

 

My uncle had people come to his door for not paying his TV license, he told them he wasnt going to pay towards the BBC hiring t**** like Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand :lol: (this was way before last week's incident by the way).

 

He currently doesnt have TV as he refuses to pay :lol:

Saying it's "market forces" is just a feeble excuse to justify capitalist greed... We're ALL being told that we have to "tighten our belts", well, sorry, but that applies also to the likes of Woss and all the other overpaid, overindulged "celebs" out there... They are a greedy, detestable bunch to a man or woman to be honest, and they simply do NOT earn their money. People like you make me puke Craig, you defend the likes of Ross and then begrudge the average working man a decent living wage to live off of... Where's your support for the country's firemen, teachers, doctors, nurses....? They are FAR more deserving cases than a prick who talks sh"te on radio or TV or some b/astard in the City who makes a profit off of destroying people's livlihoods... Or indeed corrupt and inept politicians who bleed us all dry... It really is time for a change in this country...

 

Paying £17 million to Johnathan Ross is a ridiculous concept, especially given that there are probably newer, younger, fresher, far more talented people out there who could probably run rings round Ross who dont get the breaks because they dont have the "right" connections or the access to resources because the resources are being allocated to feed Ross' bank account....

 

Why do you think Hollywood are casting cheaper actors like James McAvoy to star in the latest Hollywood blockbusters....?

 

If you search my posts as Tim Barnes you will see that I have been fully in support of the minimum wage and increases in pay for the likes of teachers and emergency services, you can not compare that with tv though, is Ross worth the money ? no, I don't rate him at all as a presenter he has got where he is because of his speech impediment more than anything but he puts bums on sofas and gets massive audiences for his shows so that is why the BBC employ him, if BBC sacked him over Sachs-gate he would be snapped up on equivalent salary by C4 or Sky or whatever, I think on talent grounds I wouldn't even give him £17 a year let alone £17m but he is a ratings winner so that is why he is paid so much, tv is about ratings

 

Ross is paid a fraction of what the likes of Oprah Winfrey, David Letterman, Bill Cosby, Bill O Reilly etc earn the other side of the pond, Winfrey's annual salary is Ross's earnings with an extra 0 on the end so compared with American entertainers he is comparitively low paid

 

 

If you search my posts as Tim Barnes you will see that I have been fully in support of the minimum wage and increases in pay for the likes of teachers and emergency services, you can not compare that with tv though, is Ross worth the money ? no, I don't rate him at all as a presenter he has got where he is because of his speech impediment more than anything but he puts bums on sofas and gets massive audiences for his shows so that is why the BBC employ him, if BBC sacked him over Sachs-gate he would be snapped up on equivalent salary by C4 or Sky or whatever, I think on talent grounds I wouldn't even give him £17 a year let alone £17m but he is a ratings winner so that is why he is paid so much, tv is about ratings

 

Ross is paid a fraction of what the likes of Oprah Winfrey, David Letterman, Bill Cosby, Bill O Reilly etc earn the other side of the pond, Winfrey's annual salary is Ross's earnings with an extra 0 on the end so compared with American entertainers he is comparitively low paid

 

Oprah tops list of highest paid TV stars

Reuters

Published: Tuesday, July 24, 2007

 

Top 5 (Per Annum)

 

1. Oprah Winfrey ("The Oprah Winfrey Show"): $260 million

2. Simon Cowell ("American Idol"): $45 million

3. David Letterman ("Late Show with David Letterman") $40 million

4. Donald Trump ("The Apprentice") $32 million

5. Judge Sheindlin ("Judge Judy"): $30 million

 

So Jonathan Ross gets paid peanuts compared to the top US stars ...... Oh, and although Scott seems unwilling to believe than the BBC pays Jonathan Ross £18 million over the 3 years for his company to produce 6 shows not to Jonathan Ross as an individual..... as misreported (again) by the New Of The World.

 

A similar point was apparently made this morning by Radio 1 Chris (I avoid this lout who did far far worse IMHO with a particularly long running vicious personal attack towards Nicola Roberts from Girls Aloud than two immature idiots did in a silly phone call which got them into trouble) Moyles when he made reference of the amount of money the BBC were paying him as he was included on the said News Of The World list and went into a lengthy rant breaking his costs down to the £1000 including costs for his staff & equipment, cost of making jingles, cost of hiring the BBC studio where he & his sycophants are on the Radio every morning within his company leaving him claiming that he personally earns just over a fifth of what the BBC apparently pay him before tax.

two immature idiots did in a silly phone call which got them into trouble

 

I certainly dont defend Chris Moyles, he's another sexist, lardy-arsed prick who needs to be booted off the air....

 

By the way, the two "immature idiots who did a silly phone call" are actually technically in breach of the Sex Offences Act, which covers things like obscene, lewd, and suggestive phone-calls and messages, whether a "joke" or not (yeah, it would really be accepted as a "joke" in a court case if I were to make a phone call to some old dear saying "I shagged your granddaughter, she's a right dirty whore who loves it up the arse", oh yeah, I'm sure the coppers and the judge would just be rolling in the aisles :rolleyes: ).... This was pointed out to me by a friend of mine who's a lawyer..... But seeing as how you are such an enemy of hypocrisy and double standards Rich, you should be fully in support of Ross and Russ being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for two years, which is almost certainly what you and I would receive if WE were to commit such an act without the cover of doing it for some sodding Radio show.... :rolleyes:

Oh, and although Scott seems unwilling to believe than the BBC pays Jonathan Ross £18 million over the 3 years for his company to produce 6 shows not to Jonathan Ross as an individual..... as misreported (again) by the New Of The World.

 

Like I said in my post, I dont give a sh!t if it's paid direct to him or his production company... He still produces absolute cr@p which simply is not worth the money, FULL STOP.... And those figures for Winfrey, Cowell, etc are just fukkin' OBSCENE as well tbh..... Innit amazing what producing such sh!te as they do manages to get.. Absolute fukkin' mediocrity sells obviously, and all the sheep soak it up like sponges... How the hell it came to this God only knows..... It just proves my point about these people more than disproving it....

I certainly dont defend Chris Moyles, he's another sexist, lardy-arsed prick who needs to be booted off the air....

 

By the way, the two "immature idiots who did a silly phone call" are actually technically in breach of the Sex Offences Act, which covers things like obscene, lewd, and suggestive phone-calls and messages, whether a "joke" or not (yeah, it would really be accepted as a "joke" in a court case if I were to make a phone call to some old dear saying "I shagged your granddaughter, she's a right dirty whore who loves it up the arse", oh yeah, I'm sure the coppers and the judge would just be rolling in the aisles :rolleyes: ).... This was pointed out to me by a friend of mine who's a lawyer..... But seeing as how you are such an enemy of hypocrisy and double standards Rich, you should be fully in support of Ross and Russ being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for two years, which is almost certainly what you and I would receive if WE were to commit such an act without the cover of doing it for some sodding Radio show.... :rolleyes:

 

that would be stupid though... a silly prank phonecall by 2 silly idiots is all it was and suggesting they should technically be on the sex offenders register is way ott...

suggesting they should technically be on the sex offenders register is way ott...

 

Is it...? Well, mate, let's just see how the law reacts if you or I, who dont have radio shows, were to do this and claim it was all some silly prank.. I somehow dont think PC Plod would be quite so forgiving of ordinary Joe Punter, do you....? Which is why I say it's hypocrisy tbh....

 

I read an interesting article in the new edition of Private Eye... Apparently, Ross has continually complained about media intrusions into his private life, and has repeatedly instructed his solicitors to go around warning people (ie those in the media, like the Tabloids, TV, and probably the likes of Brand as well...) away from his OWN family and absolutely guards the privacy of his own wife and kids; whereas, he seems perfectly okay with invading the privacy of another person's family and goading his colleagues to leave obscene messages of a sexual nature on their answerphones... Hmmmm, what was that word again...? HYPOCRISY, I do believe.... As the Eye puts it - "Do ordinary people not have any rights... Or do they only apply to seedy, middle aged celebrities working for the BBC...?" Ahem, quite.....

 

 

 

 

Is it...? Well, mate, let's just see how the law reacts if you or I, who dont have radio shows, were to do this and claim it was all some silly prank.. I somehow dont think PC Plod would be quite so forgiving of ordinary Joe Punter, do you....? Which is why I say it's hypocrisy tbh....

 

i dont believe for one moment that if you or i left messages on someones answerphone saying 'ive fcuked your granddaughter' that we would or should be placed on the sex offenders register. thats ridiculous.

i dont believe for one moment that if you or i left messages on someones answerphone saying 'ive fcuked your granddaughter' that we would or should be placed on the sex offenders register. thats ridiculous.

 

You really think so...? Did you know people p!ssing up alleyways is regarded as "public exposure" mate, which you can be fined and potentially placed on the Sex Offenders register for about 6 months....? So, you tell me which merits being placed on the Sex Offenders Register more.... Making obscene phone calls IS a criminal offence mate, it's classed in the same way as "stalking", a far more serious one that taking a p!ss up an alleyway if you ask me.....

 

God, if people can be placed on the Sex Offenders register for internet "procurement" of 16/17 year olds for CONSENTUAL sex (which is frankly ridiculous seeing as how the age of consent is 16...), then I certainly feel that people who make obscene phone calls to pensioners about shagging their granddaughters should be put on it, on the grounds that the people who receive such phone calls certainly do NOT consent to them being made before the fact....

 

Ross and Brand are extremely lucky that Anderw Sachs saw the funny side of it and accepted their craven apologies. Sachs had every right to pursue both of them through the courts....

Strange you didn't reply to the second part of my post Rob.... ;) Or else you perhaps agree with me that Ross is an abolute big, fat hypocrite.... :lol:

If people are fine watching ITV and following the news through Sky then quite frankly they deserve to feel incensed by having to pay a license fee. :puke:

 

If people are fine watching ITV and following the news through Sky then they are culturally bereft neanderthals.

 

If people are fine watching ITV and following the news through Sky then they are culturally bereft neanderthals.

 

:lol:

 

Could be worse though.. They could be watching Fox News..... :P

 

I'll always remember when Fox tried to sue The Simpsons for taking the p*** out of Fox News only to realise it was produced by Fox Entertainment... :lol:

I'll always remember when Fox tried to sue The Simpsons for taking the p*** out of Fox News only to realise it was produced by Fox Entertainment... :lol:

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

The Simpsons p!ss-take of "Fox News" was right on the money though, no doubting that... Totally bizarre thing to do though... It would be a bit like the BBC suing Armando Ianucci and Chris Morris for doing "The Day Today" (which was a BBC prog), which is clearly a mickey-take of the Beeb, and just about every other News broadcaster.... There must've been a fair few embarrassed red faces in the Fox News offices when that happened.... :lol: