Underfunding BBC..?
15/03/04 10:17 Media
issues
The Daily Mail today carries an exclusive, buried in
the small gossipy bits - Michael Portillo has decided
not to apply to become director general of the BBC.
The more I think about this, the more of a shame I consider it. OK, I find the man's politics odious, although less odious than they were until he learned some humility after such a resounding defeat in 1997. But that's clearly a personal matter between me and him. He has in recent years demonstrated a passion and talent for TV as a medium, he's experimented with formats and has embraced digital channels.
And he's ruled himself out. If the Mail is right, which is by no means certain, it's because £80K per annum for four days per week is insufficient to his needs.
Before we all get stuffy and start to criticise fat cats, let's put this into some sort of context. The DG of the BBC is in charge of all of the channels, the Internet stuff, BBC Publications, BBC Worldwide (the commercial arm), everything. Compare that responsibility to, say, running a newspaper. Clearly, you might imagine, the newspaper editor has slightly less responsibility, not that I'm writing it off - but at least one editor on a National has his salary published in the accounts, and it's a cool quarter of a million per annum.
So you can imagine that someone of Portillo's calibre is likely to opt for more lucrative commissions, which is a shame. He would have zapped all the criticisms over 'Tony's Cronies' as he opposed him, and would probably have done a good job. And unless they up the figure on offer we're going to get an excellent middle manager rather than an actual leader.
Remaining front runners include, we are told, David Dimbleby and Michael Grade. My preference is for Dimbleby - after Hutton we could do with a journalist at the top who has the guts to stand up to the critics. And I like Doctor Who, so Grade's no good!
The more I think about this, the more of a shame I consider it. OK, I find the man's politics odious, although less odious than they were until he learned some humility after such a resounding defeat in 1997. But that's clearly a personal matter between me and him. He has in recent years demonstrated a passion and talent for TV as a medium, he's experimented with formats and has embraced digital channels.
And he's ruled himself out. If the Mail is right, which is by no means certain, it's because £80K per annum for four days per week is insufficient to his needs.
Before we all get stuffy and start to criticise fat cats, let's put this into some sort of context. The DG of the BBC is in charge of all of the channels, the Internet stuff, BBC Publications, BBC Worldwide (the commercial arm), everything. Compare that responsibility to, say, running a newspaper. Clearly, you might imagine, the newspaper editor has slightly less responsibility, not that I'm writing it off - but at least one editor on a National has his salary published in the accounts, and it's a cool quarter of a million per annum.
So you can imagine that someone of Portillo's calibre is likely to opt for more lucrative commissions, which is a shame. He would have zapped all the criticisms over 'Tony's Cronies' as he opposed him, and would probably have done a good job. And unless they up the figure on offer we're going to get an excellent middle manager rather than an actual leader.
Remaining front runners include, we are told, David Dimbleby and Michael Grade. My preference is for Dimbleby - after Hutton we could do with a journalist at the top who has the guts to stand up to the critics. And I like Doctor Who, so Grade's no good!
|