Adam
Hope this helps . Daughter worked as a news presenter on one of the stations you mentioned , did overnight 10 hour shifts . She did it after leaving University and before starting a Masters in Broadcast Journalism.
The job was unpaid , but the experience was invaluable as you had to script your own news bulletins and the experienced staff she worked with were brilliant. She went onto to do the masters at City , got a first and has now left the industry . I think you need to expect to work for nothing when you first start , necessary for your CV and I as said experience in invaluable .
Its a very competitive industry and difficult to break in to , a lot of it depends on luck and who you know.
I did some shows for Classic Gold once, freelance rate was £80 a show, which made it £400 a week.
Then it was decided that the local presenter could pre-record all his/her links for the week in one sitting - so it went from being £400 a week to £80 a week!
The BBC is nothing more than a parasite on the back of the British people, the day I am not forced to buy a TV license will be the same day that what they pay out is non of my business.
:mad::mad:
Spot on. I can't understand people who say the BBC's expenditure is none of our business, any more than the people who say that we shouldn't criticise them for favouring the political left.
Spot on. I can't understand people who say the BBC's expenditure is none of our business, any more than the people who say that we shouldn't criticise them for favouring the political left.
It's more the fact that it reduces the debate to "ooh, that's a big number isn't it?" - when (compared to others in the sector) it's not actually that big at all.
It's meaningless if you haven't got the amounts for everyone.
They're probably nowhere near as "parasitic" as you have been led to believe.
It's more the fact that it reduces the debate to "ooh, that's a big number isn't it?" - when (compared to others in the sector) it's not actually that big at all.
It's meaningless if you haven't got the amounts for everyone.
They're probably nowhere near as "parasitic" as you have been led to believe.
To be fair, it's mainly the Daily Mail using it as another excuse to berate the BBC.
Comments
Hope this helps . Daughter worked as a news presenter on one of the stations you mentioned , did overnight 10 hour shifts . She did it after leaving University and before starting a Masters in Broadcast Journalism.
The job was unpaid , but the experience was invaluable as you had to script your own news bulletins and the experienced staff she worked with were brilliant. She went onto to do the masters at City , got a first and has now left the industry . I think you need to expect to work for nothing when you first start , necessary for your CV and I as said experience in invaluable .
Its a very competitive industry and difficult to break in to , a lot of it depends on luck and who you know.
Then it was decided that the local presenter could pre-record all his/her links for the week in one sitting - so it went from being £400 a week to £80 a week!
Also Jackie Onassis, who we named the station after.
Spot on. I can't understand people who say the BBC's expenditure is none of our business, any more than the people who say that we shouldn't criticise them for favouring the political left.
It's more the fact that it reduces the debate to "ooh, that's a big number isn't it?" - when (compared to others in the sector) it's not actually that big at all.
It's meaningless if you haven't got the amounts for everyone.
They're probably nowhere near as "parasitic" as you have been led to believe.
To be fair, it's mainly the Daily Mail using it as another excuse to berate the BBC.
Indeed it is. Trouble is, the poster i was replying too has clearly been suckered in.