Another bizarre "equality" case

[stockhausen]

Netflix, Amazon Prime and a number of youtube channels add far more value to my life than the BBC.

OK, that doesn't really answer the question, those are "channels".

I wondered what exactly the valuable, life-enhancing things you do watch on Netflix, Amazon and/or YouTube that are not available on the independent, non-commercial BBC might be? It appears that the News is only of interest to your kids.

 

[Hades]

OK, that doesn't really answer the question, those are "channels".

I wondered what exactly the valuable, life-enhancing things you do watch on Netflix, Amazon and/or YouTube that are not available on the independent, non-commercial BBC might be? It appears that the News is only of interest to your kids.

I'm sure why you are trying to pick an argument but I'm not interested in it.

 

[dowie]

I wondered what exactly the valuable, life-enhancing things you do watch on Netflix, Amazon and/or YouTube that are not available on the independent, non-commercial BBC might be? It appears that the News is only of interest to your kids.

There is **** loads of stuff on Amazon and Netflix that isn't available on the BBC - WTF are you smoking? Those services are massively popular because they have big budgets and produce some really good content.

 

[FoxEye]

As for non-commercial the Beeb has just as many adverts as non-Beeb channels these days. Just for their own content, and often crap I'm not interested in, like Dr Bleddy Who or some carp on BBC3. But we're talking minutes of ads between each programme now.

Seriously, the ad breaks on BBC News are horrific. One of the "ads" is just a clock ticking down for 60s for Pete's sake

 

[jpaul]

Those services are massively popular

in the 18-34 demographic, for fiction, whilst, for news/current-affairs diet, those folks seem to prefer curated, echo chamber stuff from social media, as opposed to more balanced bbc material;
but, if, for example, they don't feel that Boris being interviewed on the BBC would be worthwhile, and add to their understanding of politics, they will get the kind of unaccountable government they deserve.

 

[FoxEye]

in the 18-34 demographic, for fiction, whilst, for news/current-affairs diet, those folks seem to prefer curated, echo chamber stuff from social media, as opposed to more balanced bbc material;
but, if, for example, they don't feel that Boris being interviewed on the BBC would be worthwhile, and add to their understanding of politics, they will get the kind of unaccountable government they deserve.

Boris refused to be interviewed by the BBC The only thing we got on any of the channels was the only we got, period... sound-bites and lies the media repeated verbatim.

Honestly, the media during the election did nothing but act as Boris's propaganda wing.

Anyway, this is seriously off-topic now

 

[stockhausen]

. . .
Honestly, the media during the election did nothing but act as Boris's propaganda wing.
. . .

Quoted for truth - and now Cummings and Boris want to replace the BBC with Fox News - God help us all!

ps - it pre-dated the General Election by quite some time

 

[elmarko]

"Figures released by the NUJ, however, show the BBC One audience for Newswatch peaks at 1.9m on average, with a further 100,000 on the BBC News channel, while Points of View reaches 800,000 viewers."

It's the only data at a quick glance which has data on comparable viewing figures. Looking at the above it does appear like there is a disparity in pay. The only logical way of making sense would be to compare program type, talent & viewing figures.

Neither are them are worth the money tbh & if viewing figures were the only way around I'd tell her to jog on.

 

[matt100]

"Figures released by the NUJ, however, show the BBC One audience for Newswatch peaks at 1.9m on average, with a further 100,000 on the BBC News channel, while Points of View reaches 800,000 viewers."

It's the only data at a quick glance which has data on comparable viewing figures. Looking at the above it does appear like there is a disparity in pay. The only logical way of making sense would be to compare program type, talent & viewing figures.

Neither are them are worth the money tbh & if viewing figures were the only way around I'd tell her to jog on.

Just as an aside that does rather suggest that the viewing figures are only driven by the presenter where there are many more elements at play such as the promotion the BBC put into it, the time slot, the creator/script writers etc etc.

All of which does nothing to impact equality, those are all jobs too which would need to have that considered in their own right.

 

[katie279]

Agree entirely - there are so many other factors that 'equality' is dwarfed as noise.

Now when are male models going to get the same pay as female models ?? (Of course females attract many multiples more interest and most of this is biologically wired, but when are we just going to pay them all the same anyway????)

 

[matt100]

Agree entirely - there are so many other factors that 'equality' is dwarfed as noise.

Now when are male models going to get the same pay as female models ?? (Of course females attract many multiples more interest and most of this is biologically wired, but when are we just going to pay them all the same anyway????)

No risk that things like this are the exceptions that prove the rule?

It's a tricky one though, I guess it could be argued that the revenue generation potential impacts the value but I guess if we get all the way down this men should have the same opportunities to model make up/women's clothing etc as women.

I think you could chalk that up well down the equality "to do" list though.. much the same as the case I question in this thread. Doesn't mean there's not huge macro issue that needs attention.

 

[stockhausen]

The BBC's award-winning Victoria Derbyshire Show to come off air for reasons of cost (LINK)

Perhaps it should be replaced by the Victor Nonentity Show

 

[R.P.L]

It's a tricky one though, I guess it could be argued that the revenue generation potential impacts the value but I guess if we get all the way down this men should have the same opportunities to model make up/women's clothing etc as women.

Why?

 

[FoxEye]

Perhaps it should be replaced by the Victor Nonentity Show

Well there's only so much money. If everybody is to be paid big bucks, then it's fairly logical to assume there will be less shows being made.

This is exactly what I said about Samiria. Now she's getting £3.4k per appearance, the chances are they will look to see if they really need two meta-shows about their own content.

Course she'd probably sue if it was her show that got canned and not Vine's.

 

[i-bert]

I'd be interested to see if Nicky Campbell and Fiona Bruce get payed the same for their shows.

 

[VincentHanna]

I'd be interested to see if Nicky Campbell and Fiona Bruce get payed the same for their shows.

It's easy to check as the BBC publish all of its staff salary over £150,000 per annum

Nicky Campbell - £340,000-£345,999
Fiona Bruce – £255,000-£259,999

Pretty sure that Nicky works more hours per week though - 6:30 to 10 a.m. everyday

 

[stockhausen]

. . . Course she'd probably sue if it was her show that got canned and not Vine's.

And so the backlash begins . . .

Victoria Derbyshire 'absolutely devastated' after her TV show is cut. (LINK)

 

[matt100]

And so the backlash begins . . .

What has that got to with the topic of the thread?

 

[stockhausen]

What has that got to with the topic of the thread?

• Virtually unknown woman wins discrimination case
• Well known woman's popular show is scheduled to be cancelled to save costs
• OUTRAGE!

OK

 

[matt100]

• Virtually unknown woman wins discrimination case
• Well known woman's popular show is scheduled to be cancelled to save costs
• OUTRAGE!

OK

The cost overrun is £80m apparently and nowhere in there is anyone upset about anything other than their show being cancelled? Nothing to do with sex?