In this modern age, you would expect immense, governing entertainment corporations such as the BBC to give its employees a decent wage or to set an example on good wages. But the BBC it seems chooses to spend its money on “talent” otherwise known as celebrities of the highest standard than actually improving the quality of their TV programmes or the wages of their “lesser” employees.
As covered by Terence Blacker in the Independent, who highlights the faults of the British corporation, the BBC, describing them as having “an inconsistent, almost dysfunctional attitude towards money”. I cannot help but agree with the writer’s point of view as recent reports into the spending of the BBC show that employees working even in mid-management receive a very low wage, near the average UK wage. In the article Terrence continues to outline the bad form of the business towards their employees as any employee who complains can be easily replaced. “They know where they can go. There are plenty to others to their place”.
The journalist also points out according to the report, the worrying part is where the wage rules change, at the very top level of the BBC. Normal wages for employees are publicly known however the wages of top celebrities of the BBC are kept secret despite the BBC being a publicly funded company. The journalist also says there are occasional pieces of information that have leaked out during the years including the huge amounts of money paid to employees like Jonathan Ross.
The BBC seems to separate the celebrities and the civilians in contrast to the country that we live in. He points out the difference between enormous amounts of money being poured into celebrities to the continuous poor and bad quality dramas and TV programmes. But this is not blindly done, the author takes a more serious tone as he almost accuses the public of fuelling this. Giving an example of how the public react to anything Jeremy Clarkson says which in turn gets him attention and then the BBC happily extends Jeremy’s over-paid and long contract and salary. It’s not the money of the BBC that is being spent but our money from license fees.
The writer disapproves of the BBC’s policies and the way the body is run, expressing disdain, at the difference between the low-paid employees and the over-paid celebrities. He also says the extra expenditure on celebrities in turn is responsible for poor quality programmes. But finishes off by stating it’s not the BBC’s fault but the public which “happily” goes along with it. “It is not the market that is in danger of being distorted, but our national sanity.” After this report, many loyal supporters of the British institution are threatening to start opposing the license fees, outraged at their money being spent on celebrities like Jeremy Clarkson and Jonathan Ross.
It can, however, be argued that the BBC is a place for opportunity for civilians and members of the public. As they give people the chance to launch careers or introduce you to the audience. And that scrapping license fees won’t help in the long term as employees will still be paid the same. After reading the article thoroughly, I agree with the writer’s point of view on the subject and the spending of our money. The BBC should be more open on the wages of employees on all levels of the corporation as well as making a bigger effort on improving the quality of their TV programmes than over-paying their celebrities on what they call “talent costs”. NOTE: This essay does not comment on sentence structure, imagery or word choice used by the writer. Written casually in free time.