 |
| "Hello, and welcome to Newswatch with me, Samira Ahmed" |
I was aware that Newswatch's Samira Ahmed was pursuing an unfair pay case against the BBC but I didn't ever read what it was specifically about until this week:
The BBC's first defence was to say that Newswatch is far more niche than Points of View, to which Samira's side countered that Newswatch (by being on the BBC News Channel on Friday night and BBC Breakfast the following morning actually gets higher viewing figures (though that is debatable).
Then the BBC argued that Points of View is a long-established entertainment programme requiring (and having) a presenter with broad public appeal, while Newswatch is a news programme presented by a journalist. Plus Jeremy Vine is a household name; Samira Ahmed (despite the best efforts of this blog!) isn't.
That's surely the BBC's best line of defence, and I think that Gary Oliver at The Conservative Woman nails it by comparing the matter to the equivalent case of two of Samira and Jeremy's respective predecessors: Raymond Snoddy of Newswatch and Terry Wogan of Points of View. Who would seriously have argued, back in the day, that Old Tel should have been paid the same as Ray Snoddy? No one sensible, I'd bet.
Incidentally, though no one seems to mention this, there's also Feedback to consider.
The big question here, surely, is:
What does Roger Bolton get paid per edition, and how does his pay compare to Samira Ahmed's?
Roger's radio programme is twice as long as Samira's but Samira's TV programme runs for considerably more of the year. I'm guessing Roger will be much nearer the £440 a week mark than the £3,000 mark. (No offence, Roger!). But is that the case?
Great post on the wider issues raised by the Samira case by an ex-BBC insider
ReplyDeletehttps://tradingaswdr.blogspot.com/2019/11/law-in-nutshell.html?m=1
Bill Rogers is always interesting, and that is fascinating.
DeleteThis is a bit of an "ouch" moment for Samira in it:
"The supply-side of potential presenters to front Newswatch is huge (remember BBC News alone has 7,000 employees). Samira fell out of favour at C4; she's had a go at Sunday Morning Live, and was replaced by Sian Williams."
And the implications are clear:
"Losing this case could have serious consequences for the BBC. What if Samira had chosen Match of the Day as a comparator? After all, it's just another show with a presenter introducing clips and interviewing a few tame guests. Or if presenters of breakfast shows on BBC Local Radio claim parity with Nick Robinson and Martha Kearney? Or if Lucy Hockings, fronting her own-titled show on BBC World from Monday, demands parity with Huw Edwards?"
Interesting article. The ratings-war argument has always baffled me.
DeleteIf the BBC acted as a womb for talent rather than a bank I think TV would be more interesting and diverse.
What I mean is : take a risk on talent, pay a little, see how the public responds. If the talent gets poached, so be it....
Get some more talent.....
Nobody brings up James Cordon buggering off to the States do they.
All the BBC presenters are overpaid for reading autocues. It's time to remove the cult of personality and pay auto cue readers no more than £1,000 /week. The "fame" argument is spurious as most are only "famous" because of exposure on the BBC. So your employer makes you famous and that enables you to quadruple your salary for doing the same job you did before you were famous??!! .... madness. The BBC should just terminate their contracts and get people willing to work for reasonable salaries... none of these "famous" people will be missed.
ReplyDelete