The sound of baying and slavering from within the Northcliffe House bunker can probably be heard all over West London by now, as the obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre anticipates the news that will precipitate yet more knocking copy, more sales and clicks, and all on the back of kicking the hated BBC.
As the Beeb itself has reported, “The pay received by the BBC's biggest stars is to be revealed in the corporation's annual report later … It is the first time this information will be made public … The review, to be published at 11:00 BST, will list the 96 stars who earn more than £150,000 a year. Altogether, their earnings total almost £30m … Only one third of the names on the list are women. BBC director general Lord Hall said it highlighted a need to ‘go further and faster’ on gender issues”.
But the entreaties of Lord Hall-Hall will do nothing to stem the tide of bile building up among the Dacre doggies, as today’s Mail front page demonstrates: “PAY PANIC AT THE BBC … Meltdown as dossier names 100 staff on more than PM … Only a third are women … Bosses tried to have report delayed … Top names warned they face public backlash”.
Where, pray, might that backlash originate? As if one needs to ask. There is no panic, and no meltdown, plus the “on more than PM” is so misleading as to be irrelevant (Theresa May receives so many other easily quantifiable benefits, apart from her salary, for instance). But this does not deter the Vagina Monologue and his shock troops, who show they aren’t sexist, honestly, by having one male and one female name on the by-line.
“For the first time, the corporation will have to say which of its household names are on more than £150,000 a year. One is paid up to £2million” they tell, managing not to mention that their own editor’s total remuneration package exceeds that top figure. Also not mentioned is the obscene £800,000 paid to unfunny and talentless churnalist Richard Littlejohn. Or any of the many more six-figure Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday pay deals.
No I'm not f***ing telling you what I earn, c***. Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay
But there is a superb example of the Pot and Kettle here as the article continues “There will also be allegations of sexism - only a third of the high earners are women”. The Mail will also not be telling how much the likes of Glenda Emeritus Amanda Platell, Glenda Cattia Maxima Jan Moir, and Sarah “Vain” Vine are taking home in their generously proportioned wheelbarrows. Or their male counterparts.
Instead, the Mail has resorted to making it up: “In a sign of further panic, stars have been told they can defend their pay on social media - breaking with normal BBC protocol”. If pay details have not been published in this way before, there is no existing protocol. But we know who this is aimed at: “Presenters such as Match of the Day host Gary Lineker and News at Ten anchor Huw Edwards are already well known for their Twitter rants”.
Well, there’s a surprise. Do go on. “Mr Lineker - thought to be one of its highest paid stars - has 5million Twitter followers and a reputation for inflammatory remarks … Last year, he called those who questioned the age of refugees coming from Calais ‘hideously racist’”.
The Mail calling out someone else for “inflammatory remarks” as it tries to whip up anger against the BBC. We are truly through the looking glass.
The only panic on view here is that of print medium far right propagandists as the noose of technical progress tightens around their collective neck.
To say little of a dawn of understanding of what said propagandists are up to.
Even the most stupid Daily Heil reader might be moved to ask Dacre and co to be as open on this issue as the BBC.
But don't hold your breath.
One third of the women on the list are women according to the BBC breakfast programme this morning.
I don't suppose the Mail bothered finding out how many of the well paid BBC "stars" contribute to programs that are on-sold around the world thus making heaps of money for the Beeb. In Australia we are (thankfully) inundated with fantastic BBC programs mainly on the public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. But Rupert Murdoch's piss poor Oz cable network Foxtel regularly pinches BBC programs from the ABC by paying over the odds for them.
Even worse, and this is surely something that happens in the UK: Oz media outlets like those owned by Murdoch have no problem screeching about public broadcasters like the BBC & ABC but simply love the fact that said public broadcasters have a fine history of expertly nurturing and training staff for years on end (at public expenses) which they then poach for their private media organisations.
The Devil is always in the Detail but that isn't the Mail's forte.
That's a brilliant banner at the top of the Mail front page, a tribute to Spinal Tap's Nigel Tufnel surely. On being asked about criticism of an album cover (Smell the Glove)for being sexist (featuring a scantily clad woman on a dog leash) Nigel asks 'what's wrong with being sexy?'. Hats off to Paul D.
Like a broken clock is correct twice a day, the DM et al have every reason to go overboard on this story.
To pay these sorts of fees with public money is obscene. The BBC cancelled live broadcasting overnight "to save money" and at the same time pay that no talent Claudia Winkleman £5000,000?
The "gender gap" uproar is just a smokescreen, they want us to be more upset that poor autocue reader Bruce isn't being paid as some bloke, rather than throwing public money about. As for "you have to pay this money to get quality" there are thousands of highly talented people out there who would gladly work for nothing like this sort of cash.
Average annual wage/salary is about £27,000.
Post a Comment