I am a massive supporter of the BBC, and the idea that it should cut wages simply because the opposition cannot compete appalls me almost as much as the misreporting of presenter salaries. The oft-quoted figure for Ross of ?18m covers everything, from his Radio 2 show, his chat show, Film XX and everything else. It also covers the cost of production, so actually pays several more salaries, equipment, studio time etc etc.
It would not surprise me if Clarksons quoted salary was the same, covering the cost of TG, plus taking a rather large chunk out for stuff like the books, magazines, DVDs and sales overseas.
Why is this the situation? Because the last Government insisted on it, and John Birt brought in market forces and outsourcing of production.
The BBC ebbs and flows and it has been doing well for a few years, despite continually getting threatened with funding cuts because it has upset the Government of the day. It also faces the problem that in the commercial space, the opposition is so incredibly bad.
The BBC had a massive hit with Life on Mars, and sold it to the States. Channel 4 turned it down. Men Behaving Badly was a massive hit. ITV had decided not to renew it. Little Britain was a massive hit, because Lucas and Walliams had had time invested in them by the BBC, with a couple of series on radio, before a TV show on a niche channel so that they got it right. ITV yanks shows off the air after two episodes. Channel 4 is flogging the 10th series of Big Brother, a horse so dead that even the skeleton has turned to dust.
Complaining that the BBC is harming ITV is like complaining that England beat Andorra 6-0. What they hell are they supposed to do - play with 9 men just to make it a competitive game?