There's a rumpus about a switch from ITV to BBC by Laura Kuenssberg, who is taking up a position on the Newsnight team with a £200,000 per year salary. Quite rightly there are questions about the BBC's pathetic use of licence payers' money, and criticism over the scale of pay for the most mediocre of people.
Irritation
Much of the focus is on the calculation of the ratio appropriate for her pay and the dubious benefit to viewers, who apparently number just 660,000. It works out at 33p per viewer, we are told in newspaper headlines. My own gripe centres rather more on the lack of talent, or at least the unlikeability of Ms Kuenssberg. Her manner is quite unattractive, and in the world of TV I would have thought that was reason enough to be less than forthcoming either with a six-figure salary or airtime. The new 'Chief Correspondent' is not many people's cup of tea.
My own take on the furore is not actually to complain about the 33p of my money apportioned by the mismanaged BBC to her Newsnight role. In fact, the BBC is welcome to my 33p, AND (despite LS most certainly not being worth £200k/year) I am not now that fussed about her having my 33p - on one condition. I will gladly sanction this use of 33p on the basis that the annoying Laura Kuenssberg is kept off screen. I am prepared to contribute as long as I do not have to see or hear her.
...
I agree I find her very annoying , with her annoying yappering on Newsnight not letting her interviewee's finish without interrupting. It's more about her point-scoring and looking good, looking very pleased with herself/over-ambitious careerist. Newnight is'nt what it was after Jeremy Paxman left, Kirsty Wark is good though, Emily Maitliss is a sub-standard presenter though has improved a bit since she started out on Newsnight in the point-scoring mold of Kuenssberg though she has tamed down since then realised there is nthing to be gained by being a very poor,rude and unskilled Newsnight presenter!
ReplyDelete