Curiously, I probably watch BBC3 more than BBC1 or 2 at the moment, so I’d be a little pissed off if it were closed down. But then I wouldn’t suggest the BBC bases it’s broadcasting strategy on my personal opinions about its output.

I agree, though, that the expenses stuff is a lot of noise about very little.

“At a time when there is so much unaccountability, both in public and private life, the BBC is one of the more responsive and open organisations. The danger is that it’ll brought down because of that rather than the opposite.”

I wish, wish, wish Auntie would stick up for herself every now and again. It’s bigger than the Mail, it’s better than the Mail. It can beat the Mail. What are the circumstances behind these being released? Was there really any need to reveal that BBC executives make rather reasonable claims?

Re Emily Bell, I remember reading on Popbitch a while ago that she had been turned down for a high ranking post within the Beeb and to watch out for hideously anti-BBC stories on the Guardian. QED?

Yet these claims in any other business of a similar size would barely raise an eyebrow, as the more honest outside commentators are admitting. Prince Charles cost us £3 million last year; the BBC’s executive expenses over 5 years were £363,963.83. I know in an instant which I’d plump for every time.

Y’know, there is more sense in that one paragraph than almost all the shit I’ve read over the past few weeks. More manufactured outrage.

How come the right don’t bang on daily about the taxes we piss away paying for an over-privileged, undemocratic collection of kissing cousins?

The whole thing rather had the feel of an over-ambitious recent graduate pushing his pet project in an attempt to crawl up the corporate ladder. The repeated rewriting of the article, seemingly to leave behind the several hundred comments failing to get outraged, sorely rankles.

It was revealing, I think, that Private Eye reported that the Graun had recently laid off two experienced investigative reporters.

The BBC should leak that certain newspapers are going to be nationalised – in the interest of public good, of course.

See how those at’Mail get knickers in twist.

Wow, an entirely sensible article (meaning I agree with you entirely) followed by equally sensible responses.

This site is no fun anymore: I’ll pop back when the public broadcasting-haters start frothing at the mouth.

It is why I have always had a soft spot for Alasdair Campbell in his dealings with the scummy right wing media. Campbell lost me with what happened with the Iraq cluster fuck, but he understood the hostility of a Tory media to a Labour govt. Nobody spins more than the Mail. That is why they hated him so much, he gave them a taste of their medicine. And the Tory media has a very thin skin when the boot is on the other foot.

The Right won’t rest until they have destroyed the BBC. They hate unbiased news media. Their dream is wall to wall Fox crap every day.

Sally, I love the way you can post without uninformed stereotpyes, it’s a real talent.

At the time of writing, the search term “BBC” scores one hit on the Daily Mail’s news page. So much for the “story”, even if Jacko claimed the prime spots.

Mac, their cartoonist, obviously expected some embarrassments, hence this piss poor effort at enlightening humour:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/06/25/article-1195396-057BE021000005DC-305_634x463.jpg

The Mail’s solitary article did make two interesting disclosures, that an exec spent £130 hosting a discussion on Sport Relief and similarly £417.25 on Children in Need. I’m more than happy that the BBC spends money on such discussions, particularly if they talk about the propriety of a public broadcaster hosting such events. I’m not against the events per se, but I despise their tone and lack of intellectual rigour. The BBC’s coverage of the Live 8 concert in 2005 was painful, even for those with broad sympathy for the campaign.

It is interesting though, that we are often told that public servants make sacrifices, aren’t so concerned with materialism and could have whatever they wanted if only they went into the private sector.

Yet middle-manager nobodies at the BBC have such a belief in their own entitlement that on a junket to Las Vegas (of all places) they had to go to the Bellagio. Not the Travelodge, the Bellagio.

I like news and politics and documentaries …but I also like Hotel Babylon and Radio 1!

I would love to see the expeses of the Mail. Darce’s expeses would be very interesting. Come to that , I would love to see the detailed expenses of most private corporations.

The idea that they are prudent is such bull. And everytime you buy one of their products you pay through the nose for it.

@10 I don’t know whether the BBC employees went on a junket or necessary business trip. What I do know about business trips:
* Event organisers arrange cheap deals with hotels.
* Sometimes the company organises the trip for you. There is no choice where you stay.
* Nobody with taste and the money to stay where they wished would stay at the Bellagio. Say what you want about BBC employees, but they generally have good taste.
* Tacky hotels like the Bellagio always have cheap, vacant rooms.

13

I said it was interesting. How do you think it would be viewed in Harriet Harman’s ‘court of public opinion’?

Great article and I agree with it all and I haven’t said that for a very long time.

Particularly noteworthy is the point that “Prince Charles cost us £3 million last year” and that is just as a direct payment, other costs are far, far more and the Royals in general cost around £180m and their accounts are not even audited.

No outrage in the press about that is there?

“No outrage in the press about that is there?”

Of course not. Because the Royal family are a bunch right wing aristocrats. Just the sort of people the right wing media like as head of state.

Theywould be quite happy to pay 2-3-5 times as much out of state funds. And some of their biggest suporters are those famous libertaians we hear so much about.

Why on earth is Prince Charles, of all royals, costing the taxpayer anything? The revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall ought to be enough for anyone.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE55P1H820090626

Britain’s dominant pay-TV firm BSkyB attacked media regulator Ofcom for unprecedented interference on Friday, saying it would launch legal action if forced to open its channels to rivals at a set rate.

hehe

In many ways the BBC is to be applauded for releasing all this stuff. Contrary to the main thrust of the article the issue really isn’t about the level of expenses but the issue of transparency and accountability. It remains to be seen if other publically funded corporations follow suit without a fight. I sense, however, that it will not be long before the government produces a set of regulations on public access to financial information and amends the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Acts to stop the latter being used to deny the former.

Rob

My issue with MPs’ expenses is not so much the amounts (although some of the claims were plainly ridiculous) but the fact that MPs and civil servants colluded in deceiving the electorate (and continue to do so) rather than openly voting for an increase in their salaries.

By not having a TV licence I have chosen not to support the BBC’s business practises. I have no such choice with my MP – or the rest of Parliament for that matter.