Bbc Journos And Property Market

[WSG]

Right...there's lots of speculation (putting it mildly) on here about certain journos and their property interests.

As I understand it there are certain rules (guidelines) the BBC publishes with regard to stock market investments and it's financial journalists, but I don't think they apply to other forms of financial speculation...ie property, cocaine dealing etc.

Can we write to them asking for these guidelines to be extended to property sector...(if nothing else it would set a few pulses racing at Broadcasting House)

Secondly...in tandem with that can we make a Freedom of Information request of the BBC to discover how many of BBC News staff own "investment properties" in UK or overseas and also how many of the journalists to whom the financial guidelines apply own "investment properties"

We can put in the requests either as an individual or as HPC.

Anyone offer any advice on whether or not these are legitimate questions to ask under terms of FoI (morally they are appropriate I'm sure, but may be outside terms of the act)

Any form of return from them..even a denial to release the info can be released as a press release to all media...some will run it.

A good idea ...what do you think?

Edited August 28, 2008 by WSG

[Leonard Hatred]

The BBC's Financial Journalism Guidelines

[The Knimbies who say No]

The BBC's Financial Journalism Guidelines

I imagine they'll tell you to eff off, via the FOI clause they also cite when people try to find out how many TV licensing vans exist, or how many warrants to search people's houses have been applied for.

[The Masked Tulip]

I know numerous Meedja people, some of them journos - bah!, and they are no different to everyone else.

Some of them have STRed, some of them who look pretty on TV make a lot of dosh but if they aren't too bright, (Never ceases to amaze me how many dumb journos I have met), may have got into BTL but may wish they had not done so now.

Contrary to what most people believe many journos are not making fortunes. Sure, a handful who appear on the TV screens and who are able to secure long-term contracts can be but most are on very short-term cotracts, sometimes daily, and are often told that if they are not prepared to work for the rate then others will. Also, the nature of the work is transistory so most have a short shelf-life whilst constantly worrying about all those bright young things climbing the ladder below them.

There are probably more journos out there hoping for a housing crash so they themselves can afford to buy a home than there are those with big mortgages and/or BTL portfolios.

[W12]

Right...there's lots of speculation (putting it mildly) on here about certain journos and their property interests.

As I understand it there are certain rules (guidelines) the BBC publishes with regard to stock market investments and it's financial journalists, but I don't think they apply to other forms of financial speculation...ie property, cocaine dealing etc.

Can we write to them asking for these guidelines to be extended to property sector...(if nothing else it would set a few pulses racing at Broadcasting House)

Secondly...in tandem with that can we make a Freedom of Information request of the BBC to discover (a) how many of BBC News staff own "investment properties" in UK or overseas and ( how many of the journalists to whom the financial guidelines apply own "investment properties"

We can put in the requests either as an individual or as HPC.

Anyone offer any advice on whether or not these are legitimate questions to ask under terms of FoI (morally they are appropriate I'm sure, but may be outside terms of the act)

Any form of return from them..even a denial to release the info can be released as a press release to all media...some will run it.

A good idea ...what do you think?

As a BBC journalist......

I'm not aware of any rules governing investment property, but I haven't sought them out; I don't own an investment property. And I'm not an expert on FoI. However, I'd urge you to go ahead with this, if only to puncture the myth that BBC journalists are trying to prevent a crash because they've got BTL's (when everybody knows it's because they're actually desperately trying to prop up the Nu-Lab project *). Try and pin the request down though; do you mean presenters, correspondents/reporters/, programme editors, programme producers, business programmes, general news programmes.....? If you just ask about "BBC journalists", it could mean anyone from Paxman and Fiona Bruce to writers on the World Service Somali section (which isn't funded by the licence fee, before you ask). I doubt the FoI extends to the investments of employees, but you might get lucky. You'll probably find that the answer is "very, very few"; the average wage in BBC News is something like 38,000, and that's not enough to afford BTL's when you're living in London. I can barely manage to bung a couple of thousand into an ISA each year, and that's after a bundle of overtime. And I'm on quite a bit more than the average.

Of course, there's the issue of whether someone's main home is an "investment" property.

Good luck!

* that was a JOKE. It's actually not true.

[W12]

There are probably more journos out there hoping for a housing crash so they themselves can afford to buy a home than there are those with big mortgages and/or BTL portfolios.

[JohnnyB]

I know numerous Meedja people, some of them journos - bah!, and they are no different to everyone else.

Some of them have STRed, some of them who look pretty on TV make a lot of dosh but if they aren't too bright, (Never ceases to amaze me how many dumb journos I have met), may have got into BTL but may wish they had not done so now.

Contrary to what most people believe many journos are not making fortunes. Sure, a handful who appear on the TV screens and who are able to secure long-term contracts can be but most are on very short-term cotracts, sometimes daily, and are often told that if they are not prepared to work for the rate then others will. Also, the nature of the work is transistory so most have a short shelf-life whilst constantly worrying about all those bright young things climbing the ladder below them.

There are probably more journos out there hoping for a housing crash so they themselves can afford to buy a home than there are those with big mortgages and/or BTL portfolios.

I agree, I work for a publishing company and know quite a few journalists, they are generally the worst paid people in the company. The big salaries for the guys who sell the adverts and sell tables at events. Also a lot of them are freelancers, and move jobs every few weeks or work several different jobs and work at weekends. It is not a good way to get rich.

I could have moved over to an editorial team about 18 months ago, but i'd prefer the security I have writing dreary database reports rather than the imagined glamour.

[PopGun]

What about indirect interests, ie familly friends etc? Would still consitute a conflict of interest.

[Nicholas Cage]

I don't think they are trying to alter the market for their own benefit, the pension fund has £1bn out of £8bn

in property and the stock market has been performing badly so they are both poorly performing.

The licence fee can top up losses through increased matching of contributions, so more money is paid in

by the BBC when the employees pay in their share, covering the loss and keeping it stable. You do need

a massive cash flow to do this and not get into trouble as markets fall or have income dry up, so a car

company would have problems but the BBC wouldn't. This wouldn't involve any bias as it already happens.

Their own portfolios would be spread out across an area, probably central to London but even then apart

from a subconscious bias towards property going up they can't do much about it long term. Only possible

method would be to heavily ramp a upswing to create time to exit the market.

Edited August 28, 2008 by maxwell

[roblpm]

I had this out with a mate who is a BBC journo. He actually does have 1 BTL but he says very few of his colleagues do and I have no reason to doubt him. I have to say this is one conspiracy theory I don't subscribe to.

I do however subscribe to plenty of others ...........................................!!

[JohnnyB]

I had this out with a mate who is a BBC journo. He actually does have 1 BTL but he says very few of his colleagues do and I have no reason to doubt him. I have to say this is one conspiracy theory I don't subscribe to.

I do however subscribe to plenty of others ...........................................!!

Me too.

Tony Blair killed Dr David Kelly with his bare hands!!!!

[W12]

I don't think they are trying to alter the market for their own benefit, the pension fund has £1bn out of £8bn

in property and the stock market has been performing badly so they are both poorly performing.

The licence fee can top up losses through increased matching of contributions, so more money is paid in

by the BBC when the employees pay in their share, covering the loss and keeping it stable. You do need

a massive cash flow to do this and not get into trouble as markets fall or have income dry up, so a car

company would have problems but the BBC wouldn't. This wouldn't involve any bias as it already happens.

Our pension fund contributions are on the way up. People joining the BBC now aren't eligible for the old final salary scheme, and the whole thing will die in 2016.

I've never contemplated how the pension fund is run before, and there's no way that it could affect editorial content. In the structure of the BBC, the pension fund trustees are a million miles away from the coalface; they meet in a different building, and personally, I couldn't name a single one. I can't begin to imagine how they could speak to someone, who'd lean on someone else, who'd then manipulate the words that a journalist writes, purely to influence the performance of one type of asset in the pension fund.

[W12]

What about indirect interests, ie familly friends etc? Would still consitute a conflict of interest.

You have a good point here. To avoid such a conflict of interest, the BBC should only employ single childless orphans who have no friends.

Edited August 28, 2008 by W12

[The Masked Tulip]

As a BBC journalist......

...the average wage in BBC News is something like 38,000, and that's not enough to afford BTL's when you're living in London. I can barely manage to bung a couple of thousand into an ISA each year, and that's after a bundle of overtime. And I'm on quite a bit more than the average.

Quite a bit more. Hmm, mid 50s? 60s? 70s? 80s?

So, which 'face' are you then?

[W12]

Quite a bit more. Hmm, mid 50s? 60s? 70s? 80s?

So, which 'face' are you then?

I'm not a face, I'm a senior producer.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the salaries, unless you're purely talking about on-air "talent". At national BBC news level, researchers earn roughly twenty something, producers thirty something, senior producers forty something, assistant editors high forty, low fifty, editors sixty - very low hundred, depending on the programme. It's quite a flat "triangle" above researcher level; there are something like three producers to one senior producer, three senior producers to one assistant editor, two or three ass eds to every editor, with some variations depending on the programme.

There are a few exceptions to the rough examples above; I'd bet the deputy editor of the Ten gets more than a newly qualified editor on the News Channel, and there are still some people hanging on to their pay from before a big restructuring in 1994 who now earn way more than younger people in the same role, but the vast majority fit into the scales above.

On-air "talent" is a different matter, but remember that to put Fiona on the Ten last night, there were around ten producers on the programme, more scattered around the country and the world, camera crews, picture editors, engineers, gallery crew.... the big BBC wages you read about in the papers are for the few, not the many.....

[bobed]

Right...there's lots of speculation (putting it mildly) on here about certain journos and their property interests.

As I understand it there are certain rules (guidelines) the BBC publishes with regard to stock market investments and it's financial journalists, but I don't think they apply to other forms of financial speculation...ie property, cocaine dealing etc.

Can we write to them asking for these guidelines to be extended to property sector...(if nothing else it would set a few pulses racing at Broadcasting House)

Secondly...in tandem with that can we make a Freedom of Information request of the BBC to discover how many of BBC News staff own "investment properties" in UK or overseas and also how many of the journalists to whom the financial guidelines apply own "investment properties"

We can put in the requests either as an individual or as HPC.

Anyone offer any advice on whether or not these are legitimate questions to ask under terms of FoI (morally they are appropriate I'm sure, but may be outside terms of the act)

Any form of return from them..even a denial to release the info can be released as a press release to all media...some will run it.

A good idea ...what do you think?

A good idea and worth pursuing. It would be worth widening the brief to include property programmes and their unregulated advice on property investment. The questions should be asked regardless of any acts.

Is it worth starting here...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/

[W12]

A good idea and worth pursuing. It would be worth widening the brief to include property programmes and their unregulated advice on property investment. The questions should be asked regardless of any acts.

Is it worth starting here...?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/

Again, break it down. What is "advice"? Programme makers would argue that there's a world of difference between a conversation between two people on screen with A telling B "this house will be a great investment", and a presenter saying to the audience "buying houses is a great investment".

[The Knimbies who say No]

As a BBC journalist......

I'm not aware of any rules governing investment property, but I haven't sought them out; I don't own an investment property. And I'm not an expert on FoI. However, I'd urge you to go ahead with this, if only to puncture the myth that BBC journalists are trying to prevent a crash because they've got BTL's (when everybody knows it's because they're actually desperately trying to prop up the Nu-Lab project *). Try and pin the request down though; do you mean presenters, correspondents/reporters/, programme editors, programme producers, business programmes, general news programmes.....? If you just ask about "BBC journalists", it could mean anyone from Paxman and Fiona Bruce to writers on the World Service Somali section (which isn't funded by the licence fee, before you ask). I doubt the FoI extends to the investments of employees, but you might get lucky. You'll probably find that the answer is "very, very few"; the average wage in BBC News is something like 38,000, and that's not enough to afford BTL's when you're living in London. I can barely manage to bung a couple of thousand into an ISA each year, and that's after a bundle of overtime. And I'm on quite a bit more than the average.

Of course, there's the issue of whether someone's main home is an "investment" property.

Good luck!

* that was a JOKE. It's actually not true.

Hello.

I would be interested to hear your opinions of the BBC's licence-collecting department.(Obviously, I don't hold you personally responsible.. ;-))

Seems there are dubious practices involved, quasi-legal letters, changing signatures on letters, made up statistics etc. In short, if this was not being done in the name of the BBC, then the BBC would have investigated by now.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm

Any 'insiders' view would be appreciated.

EDIT: I should say that the reason I ask is that I do not need a license but find the tone of the communication from TVL/BBC to be frankly offensive, and I am now quite militant about it as a result.

Edited August 28, 2008 by cheeznbreed

[Jadoube]

I see a practical difficulty in such an FOI request.

Why will the BBC (or any employer) will have files of such details on their employees? Yes perhaps for financial journalists but a general presenter (or their editor) covers a wide a range of topics. Clearly the BBC can't keep tabs on all of them. After all does your employer know the size of your STR fund? The rent you pay? Where your savings are? Your recent bank transfers?

They won't have the information, and FOI does not oblige them to go out and collect information you'd like to see.

[swissy_fit]

Again, break it down. What is "advice"? Programme makers would argue that there's a world of difference between a conversation between two people on screen with A telling B "this house will be a great investment", and a presenter saying to the audience "buying houses is a great investment".

W12 this rational and balanced approach will get you nowhere on here.

What you need to do is peddle some Dan Brown-style theory about television personalities being descended from lizards and part of the illuminati, all plotting to keep house prices high because they and all their friends secretly own all the property in London and are in the process of selling to corner the gold and wheat markets. Or something like that.

That said, as you well know, there are plenty of ways to create impressions for the viewers one way or the other without actually giving explicit advice.

The not-so-lovely Miss Allsop springs to mind.

[W12]

Hello.

I would be interested to hear your opinions of the BBC's licence-collecting department.(Obviously, I don't hold you personally responsible.. ;-))

Seems there are dubious practices involved, quasi-legal letters, changing signatures on letters, made up statistics etc. In short, if this was not being done in the name of the BBC, then the BBC would have investigated by now.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm

Any 'insiders' view would be appreciated.

EDIT: I should say that the reason I ask is that I do not need a license but find the tone of the communication from TVL/BBC to be frankly offensive, and I am now quite militant about it as a result.

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea. I just pay the thing.

[Nicholas Cage]

Our pension fund contributions are on the way up. People joining the BBC now aren't eligible for the old final salary scheme, and the whole thing will die in 2016.

I've never contemplated how the pension fund is run before, and there's no way that it could affect editorial content. In the structure of the BBC, the pension fund trustees are a million miles away from the coalface; they meet in a different building, and personally, I couldn't name a single one. I can't begin to imagine how they could speak to someone, who'd lean on someone else, who'd then manipulate the words that a journalist writes, purely to influence the performance of one type of asset in the pension fund.

I wouldn't confuse the two issues.

I said " I don't think they are trying to alter the market for their own benefit" , they have no reason to do so.

The people joining the scheme since 2006 do get almost a final salary pension in all but name, Old Benefit and New Benefit capped at 6%

Career Average since 2006 pay 4%. The BBC pay 19% of total salary into the pension fund and they will cover any shortfall as soon as

possible by additional contributions from the BBC or the Licence Fee. Most pension funds should carry a surplus as the BBC does, but

they have never had a deficit either.

2016 I think refers to not increasing the pension age to 65 for pre 2006 members, not shutting down the massive pension fund or anything much

to do with it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension

[The Masked Tulip]

I'm not a face, I'm a senior producer.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the salaries, unless you're purely talking about on-air "talent". At national BBC news level, researchers earn roughly twenty something, producers thirty something, senior producers forty something, assistant editors high forty, low fifty, editors sixty - very low hundred, depending on the programme. It's quite a flat "triangle" above researcher level; there are something like three producers to one senior producer, three senior producers to one assistant editor, two or three ass eds to every editor, with some variations depending on the programme.

There are a few exceptions to the rough examples above; I'd bet the deputy editor of the Ten gets more than a newly qualified editor on the News Channel, and there are still some people hanging on to their pay from before a big restructuring in 1994 who now earn way more than younger people in the same role, but the vast majority fit into the scales above.

On-air "talent" is a different matter, but remember that to put Fiona on the Ten last night, there were around ten producers on the programme, more scattered around the country and the world, camera crews, picture editors, engineers, gallery crew.... the big BBC wages you read about in the papers are for the few, not the many.....

I wasn't aware that I had quoted any salaries. The figures you mention are no different to when I last checked them and I am always amazed that people are prepared to work in London, and are able to live, on them. Unless you love London and absolutely love working for the BBC in London - and I am talking generally here and not specifically about yourself - I really do not see the reason to work for such money in London. OK if you are an Editor - heck, it isn't really work after all is it - but how on earth Researchers begin on 20-something in London is beyond me unless, of course, they are called Zoe and the bank of Sloane, Mum & Dad is paying the rent.

[PopGun]

I'm not a face, I'm a senior producer.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the salaries, unless you're purely talking about on-air "talent". At national BBC news level, researchers earn roughly twenty something, producers thirty something, senior producers forty something, assistant editors high forty, low fifty, editors sixty - very low hundred, depending on the programme. It's quite a flat "triangle" above researcher level; there are something like three producers to one senior producer, three senior producers to one assistant editor, two or three ass eds to every editor, with some variations depending on the programme.

There are a few exceptions to the rough examples above; I'd bet the deputy editor of the Ten gets more than a newly qualified editor on the News Channel, and there are still some people hanging on to their pay from before a big restructuring in 1994 who now earn way more than younger people in the same role, but the vast majority fit into the scales above.

On-air "talent" is a different matter, but remember that to put Fiona on the Ten last night, there were around ten producers on the programme, more scattered around the country and the world, camera crews, picture editors, engineers, gallery crew.... the big BBC wages you read about in the papers are for the few, not the many.....

I bet you love Jonathan woss!

[Jadoube]

I wasn't aware that I had quoted any salaries. The figures you mention are no different to when I last checked them and I am always amazed that people are prepared to work in London, and are able to live, on them. Unless you love London and absolutely love working for the BBC in London - and I am talking generally here and not specifically about yourself - I really do not see the reason to work for such money in London. OK if you are an Editor - heck, it isn't really work after all is it - but how on earth Researchers begin on 20-something in London is beyond me unless, of course, they are called Zoe and the bank of Sloane, Mum & Dad is paying the rent.

It may explain why media research (generic not just BBC) sometimes seems less than thorough.