Enough people are "dragged in off the street" for TV presenting/commentating, start doing it and seem no worse than some who've been doing it for years.
There's been a lot of nonsense (on all sides) posted in this thread, and these days I don't have the desire to address all of them.
However, speaking from direct experience and from experience of working with upper-tier talent - I can say that presenting on TV/radio is pretty easy.
You turn up, look into the camera/ talk to the mic and read your autocue/ script. Or you do it off the top of your head.
Let's face it, that is pretty ****ing easy.
On the hand, doing it well isn't. And doing it very well is very hard.
As a rule, you can't just 'grab someone off the street' and find that they can do it very well. The likelihood is, that they'll be pretty shit. They might, however, have a natural talent that can be realised through proper development and a lot of hard work.
The repeated suggestion by Mikw that some kind of post grad/degree qualification is particularly important is a red-herring in my opinion.
I have a good degree in journalism from one of the best respected courses of its time (as do many of my colleagues), but to be honest, I did very little work and aside from a few things, learnt very little.
I only became better when I went into a real broadcasting environment and worked my arse off for a few years. The end result is that I'm an average radio newsreader who's ok at reading an autocue - and can usually cope if something goes wrong.
But I'd probably never be particularly good as an actual programme presenter, which requires a lot more skills.
Thankfully, I am quite good as a journalist/ editor/ producer - so I focus mostly on that side of things. The very best presenters (and I know a few - can do all of that, and more).
Does everyone remember the Tories "license fee freeze" that was defeated in parliament last year?
That was an offshoot of their proposals to strip back to the BBC to PSB only.
The best brains at Tory HQ worked out it would save the license payer a stonking great SIX pounds a year!
It was then worked out that it wasn't really a vote winner, was quickly shelved and replace with a license fee freeze, this was then defeated in parliament.
So, Kelvin's sums are all wrong, and the man in a (albeit entertaining) proven liar.
Great material for sound bites that get people talking, hence his constant appearances on TV, but not great if you want an accurate barometer of the way the world actually is.
It did not. PLease show us the data tha shows it saved only £6. Because you are incorrect on that. The plan showed that a £50 BBC PSB licence was perfectly possible
Waiting for a guy to get banned before asking him to back up his claims...hmmm....
You're very observant. Never noticed he was banned 'til reading your post, I'm sure he'll be rushing to answer the request made by the three of us upon his re-instatement, should that occur.
I think that as a public funded body the BBC gives value for money, of course there are going to be things not to my taste, and I could not expect things 100% my way, there are far to many people out there who can't appreciate that.
What the BBC is doing on TV, Radio and online content is mostly of high quality and I can't understand why people would want to put a stop to it. If a NHS hospital had the best service in the district would you cut back it's services or would you do what you could to ensure it's continued success?
Of course it's not perfect, you can't really justify it when they pay over the odds for certain stars and it needs to be addressed, but to quote Ronald Regan "All in all, Not bad, not bad at all"
BBC and supporters stop trying to make the issue about Kelvin Mackenzie, he's hardly the only one saying the licence fee should be a rip-off and should be cut or scrapped.
It's not like the war in Afghanistan is justified because Nick Griffin is against it.
isn't there a clip kicking around somewhere from years ago, with all the audio that newsreaders hear in their earpiece whilst they're reading the news?
BBC and supporters stop trying to make the issue about Kelvin Mackenzie, he's hardly the only one saying the licence fee should be a rip-off and should be cut or scrapped.
It's not like the war in Afghanistan is justified because Nick Griffin is against it.
You are quite right, there are several sucklers at the Murdoch teat who are all making similar calls not least the Tory party.
isn't there a clip kicking around somewhere from years ago, with all the audio that newsreaders hear in their earpiece whilst they're reading the news? sounded like a nightmare.
Thanks for that, it's really interesting to watch and listen to.
If I'd have been in Philip Hayton's place I'm not sure whether I'd be laughing or crying at the comedy of errors going on in the gallery.
I think the majority of people who don't work at the BBC want it cut or scrapped.
Not only is the BBC overmanned and the employees overpaid, they also must be underworked as they spend hours on forums like this one.
The majority? Actually, I think you'll find people think they want cuts but, as with 6Music, when cuts are suggested they don't. Perhaps Thompson should stop dicking around and axe Eastenders - without warning, mid-episode preferably. After all, soap is arguably an area that commercial sector has covered.
But watch what happens when he does and we'll see whether this alleged majority really exists or whether what is actually left is a bunch of right-whingers, high-handed snobs, misanthropes and those who drop to their knees open-moiuthed in some Pavlovian response every time Rupert walks into a room.
And the same would happen if he went the other way and axed something with small viewing/listening figures but which is beloved of Middle England. Say, The Archers? Or Springwatch? Let's see the newspapers that have been BBC-bashing at every opportunity have to do a swift volte-face as the petitions and letters to the Editor start to fly.
Comments
However, speaking from direct experience and from experience of working with upper-tier talent - I can say that presenting on TV/radio is pretty easy.
You turn up, look into the camera/ talk to the mic and read your autocue/ script. Or you do it off the top of your head.
Let's face it, that is pretty ****ing easy.
On the hand, doing it well isn't. And doing it very well is very hard.
As a rule, you can't just 'grab someone off the street' and find that they can do it very well. The likelihood is, that they'll be pretty shit. They might, however, have a natural talent that can be realised through proper development and a lot of hard work.
The repeated suggestion by Mikw that some kind of post grad/degree qualification is particularly important is a red-herring in my opinion.
I have a good degree in journalism from one of the best respected courses of its time (as do many of my colleagues), but to be honest, I did very little work and aside from a few things, learnt very little.
I only became better when I went into a real broadcasting environment and worked my arse off for a few years. The end result is that I'm an average radio newsreader who's ok at reading an autocue - and can usually cope if something goes wrong.
But I'd probably never be particularly good as an actual programme presenter, which requires a lot more skills.
Thankfully, I am quite good as a journalist/ editor/ producer - so I focus mostly on that side of things. The very best presenters (and I know a few - can do all of that, and more).
It did not. PLease show us the data tha shows it saved only £6. Because you are incorrect on that. The plan showed that a £50 BBC PSB licence was perfectly possible
The two posters above (Charnham and Bob22A) have also asked this time for you to substantiate the claim.
So I'll make it three people asking.
Will you now show us your source for that claim, show us the data?
Hope his legal department don't get wind of your words!
As for you, here's your chance to show your sums for your own claims - since you consider yourself so diligent and honest in comparison.
What the BBC is doing on TV, Radio and online content is mostly of high quality and I can't understand why people would want to put a stop to it. If a NHS hospital had the best service in the district would you cut back it's services or would you do what you could to ensure it's continued success?
Of course it's not perfect, you can't really justify it when they pay over the odds for certain stars and it needs to be addressed, but to quote Ronald Regan "All in all, Not bad, not bad at all"
People need to be reminded about what he wrote about the Liverpudlians after the Hillsborough Disaster,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie
BBC and supporters stop trying to make the issue about Kelvin Mackenzie, he's hardly the only one saying the licence fee should be a rip-off and should be cut or scrapped.
It's not like the war in Afghanistan is justified because Nick Griffin is against it.
sounded like a nightmare.
Iain
You are quite right, there are several sucklers at the Murdoch teat who are all making similar calls not least the Tory party.
I think the majority of people who don't work at the BBC want it cut or scrapped.
Not only is the BBC overmanned and the employees overpaid, they also must be underworked as they spend hours on forums like this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqhEpjOf__A
Thanks for that, it's really interesting to watch and listen to.
If I'd have been in Philip Hayton's place I'm not sure whether I'd be laughing or crying at the comedy of errors going on in the gallery.
The majority? Actually, I think you'll find people think they want cuts but, as with 6Music, when cuts are suggested they don't. Perhaps Thompson should stop dicking around and axe Eastenders - without warning, mid-episode preferably. After all, soap is arguably an area that commercial sector has covered.
But watch what happens when he does and we'll see whether this alleged majority really exists or whether what is actually left is a bunch of right-whingers, high-handed snobs, misanthropes and those who drop to their knees open-moiuthed in some Pavlovian response every time Rupert walks into a room.
And the same would happen if he went the other way and axed something with small viewing/listening figures but which is beloved of Middle England. Say, The Archers? Or Springwatch? Let's see the newspapers that have been BBC-bashing at every opportunity have to do a swift volte-face as the petitions and letters to the Editor start to fly.
Majority? Yeah, right.
given the overwhelming majority of people continue to make good use of the BBC, how on earth do you reach that conclusion?
where do you get this stuff from?
Iain