 |
| The Gang of Six |
We all know, thanks to Frankie Howard especially, that it's wrong to mock the afflicted, but nonetheless...
The Telegraph's account of the BBC's reporting of the latest twist in the 'BBC gender pay scandal' story (headlined BBC confirms pay cut for male stars after it changes story five) made me chuckle tonight.
The Telegraph's account of the BBC's reporting of the latest twist in the 'BBC gender pay scandal' story (headlined BBC confirms pay cut for male stars after it changes story five) made me chuckle tonight.
The Telegraph calls the BBC's reporting of this story a "farce".
And it is a farce.
Check out Newsniffer (particularly versions 3-5) if you also fancy sporting a mean grin at the expense of the BBC hapless 'reporting'!
Check out Newsniffer (particularly versions 3-5) if you also fancy sporting a mean grin at the expense of the BBC hapless 'reporting'!
The BBC News website, reflecting evident panic at the BBC, first reported four names (Jeremy Vine, John Humphrys, Huw Edwards and Jon Sopel); then added another name (Nicky Campbell); then dropped the first four names (Jeremy Vine, John Humphrys, Huw Edwards and Jon Sopel) leaving the added name (Nicky Campbell) as the sole patsy; then reinstated the dropped names after the patsy's name; then put the dropped names back before the patsy; and then added a sixth name (Nick Robinson).
Apparently, the first four named presenters "had no idea their names would be published, and some were unhappy that they were singled out by the BBC".
The Telegraph also gloats that "The original story was also factually incorrect, as the website had failed to note that Vine is not a BBC News presenter":
That's true, though the Telegraph isn't entirely factually correct itself. (Is that an example of what, on the internet, would be called Skitt’s Law? And will there be a similar slip in this post?). Jon Sopel isn't a BBC News presenter either. He's a reporter these days (the BBC's North America Editor).
Of course, that actually means that the Telegraph underestimated just how factually incorrect the original BBC story was!
And on it goes (and I'm going to scoop the Telegraph here)...
The final BBC edit made very recently, is even funnier. Version 14 reads:
Version 15 reads:
Yes, after all the mockery they'd already received today, the poor fools at the BBC website ascribed to John Humphrys a quote that was actually from Jeremy Vine!
I'll take the opportunity to replay my comment from the Open Thread. I think no one that I have seen has yet picked up that these men have been grossly overpaid (at the licence fee payers' expense) for decades:
ReplyDelete"So some male presenters at the BBC are prepared to take a pay cut...and there is no suggestion that, as a result, the BBC will be outbid by LBC, ITV or Sky and lose any of these presenters as a result. The only conclusion to draw is that they have, for years, most definitely been overpaid. Strangely, this point doesn't seem to have occurred to any BBC programme dealing with the issue."
According to "conspiracist" websites and Q Anon, UK government has signalled Assange can be released from the Ecuadorian Embassy and allowed to go free. Could be interesting. :) The court decision is expected on 6th February.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC's report on the issue is unillumninating, just repeating stuff that makes it sound like he is unlikely to get his freedom.
Yeah I heard somebody on the BBC News on Radio 4 say that these salaries had been set in a different time, when money was sloshing around the BBC!? When would that be then? Has somebody forgot it’s actually tax payers money!!!
ReplyDeleteThese guys are effectively auto cue readers, if one of them says Sky has offered me X pounds say thank you and get another, there’s no reason they are worth 5 or 6 times the salary of the PM!
Absolutely...and why are we subjected to them year after year after year after decade after decade. Are there really only two (white male...are you listening BBC?) people i.e. the Dimbleby brothers who can chair QT/AQ progs out of a nation of 65 million plus people? Surely there must be at least 100 who could do it entertainingly and who would do it at half the price.
Delete