« Al Murray unimpressed by Cameron connection | Main | Tabloid claws out for Hugh Grant »

Jan 29, 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

To be fair (and I mean that in the genuine, non-footballer sense, I imagine the Mail would argue that you are comparing apples and pears since no Mail executive is remunerated by the public purse.

Where do you think the Mail get their money from, trees?

Advertisers in the print edition, obviously, who pay rates based on the numbers and profile of the buyers/readers. Like every other paper. Do you not understand what 'the public purse' means. It refers to the exchequer, into which we all must pay, or other compulsory charges such as the licence fee. It doesn't refer to voluntary expenditure by consumers.

And where do these advertisers get *their* money from to pay for these advertisements?

It's still OUR money. Of course, it becomes THEIR money once they receive it; much as it does with the BBC.

You're missing the point. The reason BBC salaries are not comparable with the Mail's is that the BBC, publicly-funded by statute, is accountable to the public for its expenditure whereas the Daily Mail and General Trust is responsible only to its shareholders.

It's still our money at the end of the day, Frankie. Money comes from somewhere and at the end of the day a few people get what a lot have spent, public purse or no public purse. We all choose to buy something and we expect to get good value out of it.

When it comes to the BBC, I would apply the Archers test. No BBC, no Archers, Tunbridge Wells collapses into hot air. BBC returns...

The BBc has to try and represents peoples interests, the Mail only represents it's own agenda, which coincidentally bashing the BBC.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts