Friday, December 07, 2007

Jonathan Woss is a Ranker

What a lovely, modest man. Jonathan Ross (above), BBC presenter joked last night that he was worth "1000 BBC journalists". A pretty obnoxious boast at the best of times, but particularly when 25,000 BBC journalists are threatened with the sack over the corporation's financial difficulties, which, in no small part, have been caused by the outrageous salaries they pay to over-hyped, over-rated performers like Ross.
Thirty years ago the BBC's biggest names: like Morecambe and Wise, The Two Ronnies and Mike Yarwood (all immeasurably more talented than Ross), would have been paid higher salaries than other contracted stars, but the salary differences were nowhere near the level they are today.
For that we've got to thank 'free market' neoliberalism, which has seen incredible differences spring up between the highest paid and the rest- even in publicly owned bodies like the Beeb. The big myth about neoliberalism put about by its supporters, is that everyone benefits from the outrageous salaries paid to a tiny few, by way of 'the trickle down effect'. But it's baloney. Ross' enormous salary is not paid out of fresh air, but by cutting the salaries- and jobs- of others. One Jonathan Ross, or jobs for 1,000 journalists? Ethically, there really is only one answer.


Anonymous said...

Clever title, took me a while to work it out, but then i got it! Speach impediments are funny!

Now thats the usual objection to juvenile titles out the way a relatively faultless article, though I would suggest that whilst not worth tens of millions Ross is certainly worthy of work at the BBC, being, in the opinions of many, a very funny man.

And a question many people about BBC journalism have asked is 'should they send 3 teams to cover one event and come to the same conclusions?' The answer is probably not, its inefficient. Having said that, the money saved should be reinvested in the BBC's current affairs work. Or more Dr Who.


Neil Clark said...

I'm not saying that Ross isn't worthy of work at the BBC, only that he shouldn't be paid a salary so massive( £6m a year0 that it means lots of other BBC journalists have to lose their jobs. Ross's transfer earnings are way too high. Let's get back to how it was in the 1970s. Then the biggest stars of the day like of Eric and Ernie, Mike Y and the Two Ronnies did have higher salaries than others at the Beeb, but the difference wasn't that massive compared to today. I'm sure Ross would do his job for £60,000. If he doesn't and wants to go elsewhere, the BBC should let him. While he can be funny, he's not irreplacable.

Anonymous said...

You haven't tried for a job as a journo with the Beeb have you eh, Neil my old mate? And failed to get in? They are all NeoCon Warmongers there . . . you have no chance pal.

Roland Hulme said...

Old news, Neil. Back in February I was ranting about the ol' dinosuar that is the BBC and the outrageous pay it gives it's 'talent'.

It's only since becoming an EXPAT that I've begun to appreciate the BBC. And I don't pay the licence fee any more!!

Anonymous said...


What I meant to say was that I am worth 1,000 Neil Clarks.

Jonathan Woss,

London NW3