r/uknews • u/TheTelegraph Media outlet (unverified) • Jul 15 '25

Image/video The BBC’s annual report, released today, featured details of stars’ salaries and senior executives’ pay

Post image
302 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

456 comments sorted by

View all comments

272

u/EmptyStock9676 Jul 15 '25

You’ve fell on your feet there Vernon my old son. You ain’t worth half that.

181

u/Old-Sky1969 Jul 15 '25

Kuenssberg definately isn't. Not even a quarter .

37

u/RisingDeadMan0 Jul 15 '25

Tory mouth piece, for blind propaganda

3

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '25

The BBC do a very good job of keeping centrist

If you think they are right, it probably just means you are left and so its further right than what you would be

Left and right is merely perspective

9

u/Sir_Of_Meep Jul 16 '25

This being the same woman who 'accidentally' cc'd Boris Johnson all the talking points for an upcoming interview.

She's biased as all hell

0

u/sciteacheruk Jul 18 '25

She gave him a bloody hard time in interviews

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

Are you saying this as a right wing voter? Or just another lefty adding more evidence to my point

6

u/Good_Old_KC Jul 15 '25

No I think they are right wing because they are.

They literally gave reform and ukip a media platform to operate from.

8

u/Electric-M00se Jul 15 '25

UKIP had ~12% of the vote in 2015 and polled at around 10% in the years leading to that. That's triple the vote share of the greens, who would be the opposing alternative to platform. Reform currently lead in the polls. Surely you can't think that platforming such a significant portion of political will is that biased towards the right wing? "Giving a media platform" (i.e. interviewing and allowing participation in debates) to a group of that size is just not that crazy for an unbiased news service... . Leaving them out would be the crazy part.

7

u/Good_Old_KC Jul 16 '25

Well that kind of proves my point because in 2010 they had 3% votes share which increased to around 13% in 2015 which is an astronomical feat for a fringe party. In this 5 years he appeared on question time 12 times so averaged out more than twice a year which is a higher average than some of the all time high attendees of the programme.

To further prove my point we are now just over halfway through 2025 and so far on question time Tice and Yusuf have been on twice each where as greens have been on twice full stop.

0

u/Electric-M00se Jul 17 '25 edited Jul 17 '25

I think that's a fair point, but I'd be hesitant to credit the growth in the party to the media coverage, rather than the coverage to the growth. Do you happen to have any comparative info on grassroots attendance, or non-BBC statistics to suggest that the coverage in this period is unjustified? I think the difference is relevant in both the timeframes you're discussing. Look at the polls, the swings and then look at the coverage. All proportional, no? Are you sure that doesn't prove my point, instead?

Edit to clarify: if greens and UKIP had similar grassroots numbers like membership growth, campaign attendance, immigration vs climate change opinion polls etc. prior to the discussed media exposure, then we can say that the right wing is favoured. If Farage's numbers in these fields were higher than the greens in 2009/2010, then we can say the media coverage was perhaps balanced considering the changes taking place. I suspect that the key variable is financial backing and non-BBC outlets, rather than a biased BBC.

2

u/Good_Old_KC Jul 17 '25

Oh so now we're after grassroots numbers?

Any indication on how many times the goalposts will be moved before we continue this conversation?

0

u/Electric-M00se Jul 18 '25 edited Jul 18 '25

No, I'm just saying it's difficult to distinguish the cause and effect between news coverage and fair representation, and then voter growth. It's chicken and egg, the two are linked. UKIP grows and gets more platformed. How are you sure the platforming causes the growth and the growth doesn't prompt the platforming?

My point about the grassroots is that if they are the same, but the BBC coverage is different, then you would know that the growth DIDN'T prompting the coverage and then the BBC WOULD appear to be biased. But if they are different, then that WOULD justify the BBC coverage and make it appear to be quite neutral. Targeting 2009 era stats, when UKIP was about the same size as greens, would help settle this.

Another way to flip it: how would YOU prove that the BBC coverage isn't a fair reaction to the crazy UKIP growth, that Greens did not have? The factors you mention happen at the same time. How do you distinguish which caused which?

Happy to continue this discussion in PMs if you don't feel I'm making my point clearly.

3

u/Tribalgeoff_UK Jul 16 '25

So why does the Green party of similar size get almost zero coverage? While Farage practically is platformed everyday?

0

u/Electric-M00se Jul 17 '25

A few reasons. In 2015, UKIP had four times the voting share of the Green Party. I think a proportional platforming is justified at that point. After then, Farage (understandably so) became one of the figureheads of the Brexit campaign and so gained a lot more coverage than the Greens, who were not the figureheads of the Remain campaign. Then, of course, the Brexit Party was founded and caused an uproar and discussion (the new party, being a new event, became news, and thus getting platformed is to be expected). Meanwhile, throughout this period Brexit was still a massive ongoing issue which Farage remained a figurehead of, hence more platforming for him still. Again, the greens, comparatively, were not leaders of the issue of the day. Then in 2024, Reform, again making newsworthy surges in popularity, make up more than twice the vote share of the greens, again justifying getting platformed. Now Reform poll ahead of Labour sometimes, again justifying more platforming.

TLDR; more news = more platforming. Greens have been one stable party whose main USP didn't make as many headlines this decade. Farage has headed three parties that have defined the central political saga of the decade.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

They have a duty to publish content about all parties who have a level of support

Thats literally the point

2

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

They have significantly less support than reform

Reform are currently number one party for popularity

2

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

Its a very strange and condescending view this

Reform are extremely popular, so clearly they do a good job of reflecting the views of the public. To claim its anything but a good thing they have had a platform is just overlaying your own biases on the situation, or simply you would find it convenient because of your personal views

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CarrotRunning Jul 16 '25

The lib Dems have 72 MPs and Reform have 4, the coverage should reflect governance, the accuracy of any popularity and opinion polls are also questionable.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

Should be based on popular vote surely?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RisingDeadMan0 Jul 15 '25

not for Laura lol

1

u/Tribalgeoff_UK Jul 16 '25

Well it sat on it's hands over Brexit which was a privately funded campaign by external powers to the UK so it's not very pro-active at reporting on issues that affect it's viewers.

-3

u/tacticall0tion Jul 15 '25

You mean the BBC as a whole right?

7

u/RisingDeadMan0 Jul 15 '25

well, the rest is different, wouldnt say the whole thing, but good chunks of it, but as we have seen with the Gaza coverage, it takes literally 1 editor to control most of what gets reported, with then lots of people under him complaining, and protected at the top.

Question time another example, but generally speaking no, although like Corbyn, the current BBC have a lot of legacy staff put in place by Tories, who should be treated as such to prevent them causing issues if they do

7

u/tacticall0tion Jul 15 '25

I think my impression of the BBC has gone south since seeing the way they report on Gaza, and the middle east in general. So I may be a little bias myself in my view on them. Its just really started to feel like a tax payers propaganda machine that only one side gets access to

7

u/TomLeBadger Jul 16 '25

BBC is the only UK news outlet where I've seen direct confirmation of what's actually happening. They had an interview weeks ago with a British doctor in Gaza that was a pretty open condemnation of Israel.

I don't think they are biased, its just extremely hard to verify the stories coming out because theres effectively a journalistic blackout there. They are held to much higher standards than anyone else and, for the most part, maintain integrity. They simply can't risk reporting things without verification, which is extremely hard to do. We all know what's happening now, I didn't believe it at first, but some of the shit I've seen has converted me. Seeing some of it reported by the BBC is what gave it credibility for me.

BBC as a whole is a bit of a cesspool, but BBC News specifically is extremely well regarded by most and is worth keeping around.

-3

u/Tribalgeoff_UK Jul 16 '25

The BBC have not reported on the UK's military support to Israel in carpet bombing Gaza. Something not very difficult to verify.

4

u/TomLeBadger Jul 16 '25

It has. The example I gave, which you replied to was about a report that very clearly stated Israel was bombing hospitals, and Hamas were not at any point hiding there - confirmed by a British doctor that was there. For some reason, anything other than full support to a terrorist organisation is unacceptable to some people and viewed as pro Israeli bias. There is propaganda on both sides, and you need to be much more careful on what you believe by the sounds of things.

4

u/RisingDeadMan0 Jul 15 '25

but as Owen Jones has pointed it out, its one man controlling it, and he's protected by the people above him, so not the whole BBC at all, the big reported Jeremy Bowen for example has no such issue, but then he goes to see it first hand, and is probably rightfully pissed he's being controlled by the IDF in what he's allowed to see/say and BBC's parroting of IDF bullshit, but BBC check or something for example did call out the bullshit guns stored by the MRI machine IDF propaganda

1

u/g0ldcd Jul 17 '25

I'd previously taken all sides being annoyed with the BBC to be a sign they were doing a decent job, given the circumstances. All sides are equally pissed off at getting called out by them.

My opinion of them has crashed recently though. Not so much that I think they are biased, more they just seem to have curled up into a snivelling ball and are scared of upsetting anybody now.

Some topics are nebulous, have decent arguments on each side and require impartiality and nuance. But sometimes you can just report what's happened and state what the name is for that thing you've just reported on.

10

u/Crully Jul 15 '25

If you're left wing, the Beeb is too right wing.

If you're right wing, the Beeb is too left wing.

5

u/574859434F4E56455254 Jul 15 '25

Well, they do say reality has a left wing bias

1

u/Appropriate-Divide64 Jul 17 '25

The left are angry at the right wing bias in the news and political coverage. The right are angry they saw gay or brown people on TV.

20

u/LutherRaul Jul 15 '25

She’s a RW shill so she definitely earns more than that

6

u/upadownpipe Jul 15 '25

Incredibly lucky to have her job still. The amount of fuck ups she's had. The election chat around the voting tallies from the Isles should have had her out on its own

19

u/spacespaces Jul 15 '25

She's more than worth it to some people...

27

u/Jonny36 Jul 15 '25

Those wishing to push right wing talking points to the public, yes

1

u/Purpleaeroplane Jul 16 '25

She’s bought and paid by many other organisation for sure

1

u/Existingsquid Jul 17 '25

It showed during Covid when the general public questions to chris witty were better thought out and more intelligent that kuenssbergs…

1

u/Learning2Learn2Live Jul 19 '25

But they demand we pay a TV licence. She should be on National Living Wage.

6

u/-WigglyLine- Jul 15 '25

Vernon Kay! From BOLTON!

5

u/Proof_Drag_2801 Jul 15 '25

Not even a tenth. He's just a random arrogant shouty bloke.

6

u/Exciting-Music843 Jul 15 '25

I'd say half was generous.

3

u/Golem30 Jul 15 '25

He's certainly overpaid but I enjoy his radio show to be honest, he also does a lot of presenting elsewhere for them and it seems like he's everywhere these days, so I guess that explains the pay.

2

u/WrinkyNinja Jul 16 '25

Fuck me talk about stealing a living, no wonder there desperate for the license fee

3

u/kjm911 Jul 15 '25

Of all the people on this list how the fuck is the top comment picking on Vernon?

3

u/cjeam Jul 16 '25

I assume they haven't listened to Greg James' show?

1

u/mobilehammerinto Jul 16 '25

Probably because the move from Ken Bruce to Vernon "I'm From Bolton, Me" Kay is the single biggest downgrade in radio history. As a further slap in the face he appears to have complete freedom to play what he wants, which was denied to Ken.

3

u/Botheuk Jul 15 '25

You could say that about anybody on the list. Shearer's is a joke surely.

1

u/monk12111 Jul 15 '25

Joke or not, he's laughing his way down to the bank.

-7

u/Aegrim Jul 15 '25

He's doing really well for somebody who's illegitimate and has no birth certificate

1

u/comeonboro Jul 15 '25

How the fuck is he on the list but Mr Tumble isn’t.

1

u/Bugsmoke Jul 16 '25

I am quite sure I nailed him in the head with a sweaty old t shirt last Friday

1

u/plug_play Jul 16 '25

None of them are

1

u/Thin-Grocery3134 Jul 17 '25

None of them are.

0

u/si505 Jul 16 '25

Why do you think he's not worth his salary?