Bad News

The recent stoush over gender pay gaps in the BBC has thrown a spotlight on more than just the gulf between the salaries of some of its employees – it's also highlighted just how grotesquely inflated the pay packets of so-called celebrities are. Especially those paid by us, the taxpayers. 

So, on your behalf, dear reader, I have been casting a critical eye over the presenters in particular, (it's my right eye; my left one is more tolerant) and I am now ready to give you my opinion of their huge salaries. In a word: bollocks.

Before the main rant, let me just say that I am qualified to cast judgement on news presenters in particular. In the 1980s I was one of them myself, in New Zealand, on a regional news programme which went out live-to-air five nights a week immediately after the main national news.

A younger me presenting the regional news in NZ

My job was basically the same as any of the news presenters today: sit in a studio, read from an autocue, speed up or slow down your presentation to ensure the programme fits into the allotted time, and keep things running if something goes wrong. There was admittedly an element of scriptwriting for the introductions to the stories, but even that was usually based on information supplied by the reporters who were driving them.

I was not a celebrity or personality, and I was classed (and paid) as a 'senior journalist' – mainly because the role of 'news presenter' didn't officially exist, at least not at TVNZ. At that time anyone on the telly in New Zealand was an employee, not a 'star' on a negotiated fee plus bonuses with two months off every summer. 

Pleasingly (at least to me) my role was slightly more involved than just news reading – I would sometimes go out with a film crew to direct and present features, plus if we had what we called 'a visiting fireman' – a personality or famous person of some sort – I would interview them live during the programme in the studio.  In a nutshell, I had a few more things to do than just read the news.

Now to the rant, with a capital Aaargh. BBC news presenters in particular don't do anything other than sit in their chairs, read robotically from an autocue, and… well, that's it. Even their studio 'guests' – who are invariably BBC specialist rounds editors (finance, crime, health, social, etc.) – are not actually 'interviewed'; they simply present a report they otherwise would have done had they been crossed to 'live' somewhere.

Oh, and don't get me started on this ‘crossing live’ thing! Why does the news insist on 'crossing live to (insert name here) in (insert place here)' for a report that is inevitably in front of a closed courthouse, outside a dark chainlink-fenced factory, or on a deserted street cordoned off with police tape where something happened six hours previously? The reporters stand there telling us breathlessly what happened hours earlier on this very spot, wasting our money (in the case of the BBC) instead of being in the comfy warm studio beside the news presenter. Crossing live is bollocks also.

But I digress. Let me get back to the main rant, and reveal here and now that almost anyone could be a news presenter. Literally almost anyone. Can you read? You're on the road to fame and fortune. Can you look serious and stern, yet morph into light and jolly when required? You're hired. Can you use the voice of doom for bad news, and be on the verge of giggles when called for? The job is yours. It's that easy. Seriously. I know; I've done it, and it is one of the cakiest pieces of jobs in the world.

Channel 4’s news is to be commended. Their news presenters, such as Matt Frei, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Cathy Newman and others actually conduct in-depth interviews live in the studio, and not just with patsy Ch. 4 journalists; theirs are with senior politicians, captains of industry, union leaders, in fact anyone who is a big-enough target and deserves to be put under the interrogation lamp. Just watch them - they actually perform real interviews, which involve an on-the-spot thrust and parry that the BBC’s sanitized and rehearsed stuff just can’t match.

Matt Frei of Ch. 4 news

I like their newsreaders better too, when they present to-camera. They have more believability, more credibility than, say, the BBC’s Fiona Bruce, whose style is so conspiratorial that I feel the need to draw my chair closer to the television so that nobody else can hear what she’s telling me. She is allegedly paid between £350,000 and £400,000, and that's just to talk to me. There are others, but I am overcome with such ennui I can’t bring their names to mind. What I can tell you is that I would happily do Ms Bruce’s job for only twenty percent of what she’s paid, and I would do it better.

Come closer, let me whisper in your ear...

The only one at the BBC news worthy of note is political editor Laura Kuenssberg. She must be good since she has been threatened, and has required a body guard; you know your questions are getting close to the bone when that happens. Alas Laura and her posh wardrobe of elegant coats is usually confined to a rooftop somewhere in Westminster for most of her reports.

Laura wondering where her bodyguard is

I want Ms Kuenssberg to be the BBC’s main news reader, in the studio, allowed to do her incisive interviews and ask her intelligent questions live, and definitely not talk to rehearsed ‘editors’ who have exactly 50” to say their prepared piece. Are you listening BBC?

So, presenters’ salaries are bollocks, particularly at the BBC where they do sod-all to earn them. Our licence fees pay for this ‘service’ and we are absolutely short-changed. That’s the end of the news, here’s the weather.