On the return of Jonthan Ross, I cannot do better than the words of Charles Moore:
In a Liverpool case last week, the court heard that a teenager had been paid £50 to brandish guns on a BBC Panorama programme. He was not paid directly, but had been procured by a middle-man, referred to as ‘Male C’. After the 17-year-old had waved his guns about for the cameras — to illustrate Merseyside gang culture — Male C said ‘Nice one’ and gave him the money.
I felt a twinge of envy. At much the same time, I was being interviewed by Panorama for a programme, due next week, about swearing, Jonathan Ross and all that. At one point in the hour and a half of which, I would guess, a maximum of 15 seconds will be used, I mentioned payment for my services and was met with a gale of laughter. But then I had no Male C to fight for me, and I was unarmed.
Ross, though 48 years old, in some ways resembles the Liverpudlian teenager. He has understood that there is money in bad behaviour. His equivalent of Male C is a figure known as his ‘agent’, who has managed to extract £6 million a year from the BBC in return for the use of four-letter words and making indecent suggestions about public figures.
While I was doing my interview, I was told to sign the customary ‘release’ form assigning copyright to the Corporation. I noticed that it contained a clause saying ‘You agree that your contributions will not bring the BBC into disrepute or be defamatory.’ It occurred to me that if I removed the word ‘not’ from that sentence, I might be on the way to £6 million a year.
At one point in the hour and a half of which, I would guess, a maximum of 15 seconds will be used, I mentioned payment for my services and was met with a gale of laughter.
ReplyDelete"Services"? What services? They're the ones doing you a favour, by giving you 15 seconds of fame!
By contrast, whenever I've appeared on the BBC (or Sky), I've always been paid - because they're making use of my hard-won expertise in various fields. As opposed to space-filling rentagob opinions about swearing, which any numpty can come out with.
Oh, and because I also negotiate fees upfront before agreeing to appear, instead of bringing up the subject once the cameras are already rolling.
I've just realised that you're quoting Charles Moore rather than expressing your own opinions - but in many ways that reinforces my original comment.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, doesn't the fact that the BBC is prepared to offer Moore a platform for his views despite using his high-profile column to call for a boycott of the licence fee speak volumes about who's behaving more honourably here?
Well, you clearly never went to Eton or married a Fellow of Peterhouse, unlike dear old Charles Moore.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the BBC doing emplying someone who "negotiates fees upfront before agreeing to appear", as you put it?
Moore's inexplicable heroine, Thatcher, has a hell of a lot to answer for. She created your whole wretched unclassy class of people with neither the good manners of the upper class, nor the good manners of the middle class, nor the good manners of the working class.
Jonathan Ross, in fact.
On the license fee, I think that the Beeb just knows that its game is up.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that's why Moore doesn't get paid, but you do.
Not for much longer, though.
Not for much longer.
Did I read that right? Media Tart, sought after and paid for by Sky and the BBC, didn't realise that "the words of Charles Moore" were the words of Charles Moore, and thought that you would be appearing on Panorama?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid so. Might not have gone to Eton, but certainly went to Oxbridge. So has a media income for life, entirely regardless of talent or accomplishment. The Lenin High Schools also have a lot to answer for.
ReplyDeleteWell, you clearly never went to Eton or married a Fellow of Peterhouse, unlike dear old Charles Moore.
ReplyDeleteNo, I didn't, but I fail to see the relevance. Moore is hardly unique.
What is the BBC doing emplying someone who "negotiates fees upfront before agreeing to appear", as you put it?
Because as a professional writer and broadcaster, I expect to be paid for my work. Especially if it involves a certain amount of research and preparation prior to the broadcast, as is often the case.
Moore's inexplicable heroine, Thatcher, has a hell of a lot to answer for. She created your whole wretched unclassy class of people with neither the good manners of the upper class, nor the good manners of the middle class, nor the good manners of the working class.
What a truly bizarre comment. Any professional arrangement in any field is going to involve some discussion of remuneration at some stage - and it makes much more sense to have it upfront, as this minimises or eliminates potential unpleasantness later on. What on earth is "wretched" and "unclassy" about that?
Indeed, would you not agree that Moore's behaviour, in asking for payment when a chunk of the work had already been done but prior to signing the release form (without which the BBC couldn't exploit the material) was infinitely less classy? In fact, downright rude?
I'm afraid so. Might not have gone to Eton, but certainly went to Oxbridge.
Nope.
So has a media income for life, entirely regardless of talent or accomplishment.
Again, nope. I get paid by the job - and I'm only as good as the last one. That's what being a freelancer entails, and why freelancers tend not to take on jobs on the never-never.
The Lenin High Schools also have a lot to answer for.
Actually, I went to one of your beloved grammar schools. But I'm amused to see that you're just as keen to jump to conclusions as I am - and I did at least own up to the Charles Moore attribution confusion before your anonymous contributor pointed it out, even though you haven't let it through at the time of writing.
Oh, it's too easy, it's too easy.
ReplyDeleteI am very, very bad...
Now, as Anonymous put it:
"Did I read that right? Media Tart, sought after and paid for by Sky and the BBC, didn't realise that "the words of Charles Moore" were the words of Charles Moore, and thought that you would be appearing on Panorama?"
Did I read that right? Media Tart, sought after and paid for by Sky and the BBC, didn't realise that "the words of Charles Moore" were the words of Charles Moore, and thought that you would be appearing on Panorama?
ReplyDeleteAs I said, a minor misattribution that in no way affects the thrust of my original comment - and which I had the grace to acknowledge more or less immediately. I freely admit that the prospect of seeing you appearing on Panorama talking about swearing was so enticing that, like Stern magazine and the Hitler Diaries, common sense and fact-checking temporarily took a back seat. But only temporarily.
And I'd be more impressed with your attempt at point-scoring if you could acknowledge a single instance of you voluntarily correcting a mistake on your part in a similar fashion. You know, like your knee-jerk assumption that I went to "Lenin High School" followed by Oxbridge and that I'm on some kind of retainer?
I put up your comment.
ReplyDelete