FOI and the BBC: The next round
I've written on numerous occasions in the past about the BBC itself and freedom of information, and this topic is likely to get a lot more media and public attention over the next few days and weeks.
That's not only due to today's speech by director general Mark Thompson about transparency and the disclosures about pay and expenses of individual BBC executives.
It's also because the BBC is set to appear in the High Court next week to defend its stance on refusing to publish the internal "Balen report" on Middle East coverage and (arising from a separate case [179Kb PDF]) some production cost information, including EastEnders.
The Balen report case will now be considered on the central issue of whether to publish after a Jarndycean detour through a series of legal technicalities which went all the way to the House of Lords. The report itself is now five years old.
Much media attention will also doubtless now focus on the BBC's reluctance to make public, with regard to high-profile and highly-paid presenters or "talent", the same kind of information about individual pay and expenses that it has committed itself to revealing about comparatively anonymous executives.
The BBC's position is that its new policy on disclosure of management pay and expenses compares well with most public authorities and is at the forefront of the media sector. Yet it is clear from the front page of today's Times, for example, that it will still come under fierce criticism for not releasing more data.
The corporation will argue that it is now well ahead of much of the public sector in its openness on management information, while it defends strongly the confidentiality of material related to programmes or editorial content.
While the BBC has some concerns over commercial considerations, its stance on FOI and programme information stems from the "derogation" or exclusion it has under the Freedom of Information Act for material kept for the purposes "of journalism, art or literature".
Quite what is covered by this derogation has been a matter of contention between the BBC, the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal in various cases (such as this one [80Kb PDF]). The High Court may now be about to set some precedents in this field which will determine what programme-related information the BBC discloses in future.
A 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I would disagree with the notion that all individual salary details should be divulged.
It is not in the public domain what you or I earn and it is not anyone's business for that matter.
I would be in favour of a more generic way of reporting it. For example, by department - that way we could still respect anindividual's right to privacy.
Whilst we all may raise an eyebrow when we hear about the salaries of some of the top earners at the corporation, we should be more concerned about the total amount of money paid, rather than how that money is distributed.
And like the recent MP's situation - a clear examination of what is and is not a valid expense claim should be done before we criticise how much is spent on expenses. If there are the correct controls in the first place, there should be no reason for us to worry.
I do fear though that these controls are not as tight as they should be. Although they will not be as ridiculous as those seen in Westminster!
Complain about this comment
Now we can see what these "stars" wages are , there is always new talent out there looking for jobs and the first step on the showbiz ladder , this should be what the BBC is all about , sign them on 4-5 year deals (plenty of time before the public gets bored of them ie moyles,ross)with huge get out clauses like in football.
I like may others am sick to hear these presenters are on £££millions while we all struggle on 15-40000K a year.
Let them go if they want more money , there are only so many channels they can go to , let them try and get more elsewhere if thats what they want, these presenters need to be seen by huge audiences and the BBC has that , they shouldn't be on more than 60k per anum.most of them are absolute garbage anyway, the radio 1 Djs are the poorest they have ever had.Sara Cox ?? oh dear , she is shockingly bad.
The execs should be on 60k max as well, most of the money should be spent on programmes , like south pacific,live football,life on mars etc
Complain about this comment
Not disclosing the amount paid to freelances who work for the BBC, such as Jonathan Ross, John Humphries et al. is indefensible. Essentially it is setting up even more privileges for people who work for the BBC on a freelance basis, so that in addition to the extra pay, benefits and perks, they also get anonymity as well. There is no justification for this division, and in fact it can be argued that it is more important that this information is available to prevent abuses of the freelance system being hidden.
Complain about this comment
Where the hell does Ashley highfield park that can cost £40?
It's not just what has been claimed for, but how much is being claimed which is rediculous here.
imagine: "er, yea.... I need £50 to replace the batteries in my sky remote, which you pay for, for my kiddies to watch the disney channel.... which you pay for"
Complain about this comment
#1 "It is not in the public domain what you or I earn and it is not anyone's business for that matter."
I'm sorry, but while I am forced through unfair legislation to fund the BBC each year, I have every right to know the salaries of these overpaid celebrities.
So what if they migrate to another channel? Because:
1. I will no longer be funding their grossly overpaid salary
2. I will still be able to watch them if I so desire.
Complain about this comment
The BBC's stance on FoI has been completely disgraceful - the corporation is taking the mickey out of the law and the general public by repeatedly refusing requests for financial information in the full knowledge that they are not covered by the BBC's derogation and will eventually be forced into the open by the Commissioner.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/3/18/bbc-holds-the-law-in-contempt.html
Complain about this comment
"That's not only due to today's speech by director general Mark Thompson about transparency and the disclosures about pay and expenses of individual BBC executives."
I wonder how much this'll come to.
and the drinks, the guy loves a drink.
Complain about this comment
> So what if they migrate to another channel? Because:
>
> 1. I will no longer be funding their grossly overpaid salary
> 2. I will still be able to watch them if I so desire.
Spot on!
Bish, why have you stopped answering questions? Your stance on information is likewise disgraceful.
Complain about this comment
#7
And we never got a satisfactory answer about his trip to visit Sharon, and the unconnected moving of Orla Guerin from her post as Middle East correspondant (Sharon hated her), followed by the morally reprehensible refusal to show the DEC Gaza appeal.
They have quite clearly shown that even though funded by us the taxpayer, they have utter contempt for us, and would rather comply with the will of politicians of not just this country, but foreign countries.
It is illegal to force people to pay for something which could be considered treason.
Complain about this comment
"I would disagree with the notion that all individual salary details should be divulged.
It is not in the public domain what you or I earn and it is not anyone's business for that matter."
Not true! As a former teacher/Headteacher, my salary WAS known by anyone who cared to look up the appropriate tables in the Teachers Pay and Conditions Document. We DO know what nurses, doctors, policement and junior Council officials are on. Why the secrecy? This is public money, that members of the public are REQUIRED to give in the form of a tax whether they use the BBC or not, and so they are no different from other public servants. Quite frankly, the salaries are way too high for run of the mill jobs. Doubtless they wouldn't be called run of the mill by those in them, but nor would teachers, nurses, policemen, and uncle-Tom-Cobbly-and-all describe their jobs as run of the mill either!
Time some of the Licence cash was paid to more efficient broadcasters.
Complain about this comment
"It is illegal to force people to pay for something which could be considered treason."
Uh, you were doing so well and then your brain exploded.
WHAT could be considered treason? And why would paying for Eastenders be affected under it? If treason were done, then show your proof and ask the CPS to prosecute. If you haven't, then stop yibbering like a lunatic.
Complain about this comment
"WHAT could be considered treason?"
If, and I say if, there was some influence exerted by a foreign power over the content of a British state-funded institution.....
Leaving aside ill-advised Thompson's visit to Ariel Sharon, the BBC Trust produced a report stating that the BBC had a pro-European Union bias.
"In addition, the BBC has been lent vast sums of money by the European Investment Bank, a main aim of which is to lend money to projects which are achieving European aims. "
If this is not influence exerted by a foreign power, then I do not know what is.
Complain about this comment
"If, and I say if, there was some influence exerted by a foreign power over the content of a British state-funded institution....."
OK, so if it's not true (and this is more likely), there's no problem.
And isn't the entirety of international relations the influencing of a foreign power?
Complain about this comment
Seeing as the BBC is not entirely funded by TV licensing then surely they only need to demonstrate what the public provided money was spent on.
BBC also sells programs and packages to other companies thus making that a private business.
Whilst there should be accountability for public funded spending I'm not sure that should extend to private business. Of course, if you disagree, please feel free to announce your personal salary and expense details on this forum.
Complain about this comment
YW
Will respond on the original thread. Probably later tonight.
Complain about this comment
"BBC also sells programs and packages to other companies thus making that a private business.
Whilst there should be accountability for public funded spending I'm not sure that should extend to private business. Of course, if you disagree, please feel free to announce your personal salary and expense details on this forum."
Lots of public bodies buy and sell products. It is something that has been going on for a couple of decades (even if you don't count pre-Thatcherite sales and purchases!). That doesn't make them a private business. All their purchases and receipts are liable to official scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
If we, as the people who pay the TV tax, cannot influence how it is spent through the normal medium of open competition then we most certainly should have the right to see how the money is spent simple to try to influence the spending through an expectation of causing embarassement.
Just like national security should not be a fungible excuse with embarassment for Ministers and Civil Servants, neither should somewhat fake concerns over privacy. When it comes to the "stars" at the BBC the agents of these so called "talents" are the first to leak their hyper-inflated earnings to the media to make them seem important.
Transparency reduces corruption. Simples, ya ?
Complain about this comment
You haven't yet, Bish.
Complain about this comment
@1 Peter - I would be perfectly happy for anyone to know what I earn and I work in the private sector.
In fact, here is what I earn: £12,500 pa (approx).
There.
Complain about this comment
Is Bloofs your real name, then?
Complain about this comment
YW
Check again.
Complain about this comment
@ 20
Yes.
Complain about this comment
All this fuss about presenter's salaries is nothing more than one of nastier manifestations of the British curtain-twitching obsession about poking your nose into somebody else's private lives. Some people seem to be using the £12 month fees as a pretext to assert some kind of mandate to poke your nose into every corner of a corporation's activities. The private sector, is different, they say, because you don't have to pay them, and it's all market forces, and that's sacred. But try telling Sky that you'll take your £21.50/month subscription elsewhere if they don't tell you what their talent gets paid, I'm sure they'll give you any salary information you ask for, just whatever you do, don't take your £21.50 elsewhere.
Actually the most vocal proponents are those with vested interest in crippling the BBC. Something like this would be really convenient for the BBC's rivals because they the BBC is then uniquely crippled in its ability to keep the stars it needs, many will end up going to the very organisations that was pushing for their salaries to be revealed when they were at the BBC. The BBC has to put all the groundwork in, developing and cultivating, only to see the best talent get cherry picked by its rivals. Now does that sound like some sort of corporate welfare manifesto for commercial broadcasters, and how is it supposed deliver better value to the licence fee payer.
And before you ask, no I don't work at the BBC, I just have an aversion to prying, curtain twitching and gossiping, and now live in a country that doesn't quite have the same obsession.
Oh, and Bloofs, very magnanimous of you to reveal your salary, but given you're an anonymous (to me at least) user on a web forum, it's a meaningless gesture.
Complain about this comment
As with all political matters that end up in a more public arena the answer is always: Shoot the Messenger.
When the influence of money and the monied is brought to public light the media is always blamed. Now that bankers are welfare recipients they try to maintain their status by pretending to be above it all. Maybe a comparison of the retirement plans for the bankers and the media should be a side by side. I would think one bankers plan would cover most of the presenters. Of course the politicans are upset that someone should expose their violations of public trust. Maybe some day we will find out what the banks actually did with the money they "lost" and the money they have been "given." The elite never understand why they are called elitist, even when they act that way. Accountability to the "little people"......please.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS