The BBC is to cut the number of journalists covering political party conferences as programme editors have been told to focus on “core news coverage only”.

Only the Today programme will continue to have its own studio during conference season, the Times has reported, while other shows including Newsnight and Daily Politics will no longer have dedicated sets.

In previous years, the BBC has taken around 80 members of staff including journalists and technicians to cover the two major party conferences. This compares with three for ITV and eight for Channel 4.

The BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg will continue to lead coverage from TV bulletins, but other BBC News staff and those from BBC regional news channels will not be accommodated at the corporation’s “diminished facilities”, the Times has said.

BBC sources told the paper that all news programmes would still cover the conferences, but would have to be more “nimble”.

The move comes as the BBC is looking to trim £80m from its news budget by 2021. This is almost equivalent to axing radio station 5Live (budget £49.1m a year) and the BBC News Channel (budget £46.2m a year).

A BBC spokesperson said: “BBC News is, in general terms, sending fewer journalists to cover events, but we are not reducing the strength and breadth of our coverage in any way.”

Picture: BBC

The BBC could face “hundreds” of equal pay claims from staff as the row over gender pay parity continues, a BBC source has told Press Gazette.

Since the publication of top-earning talent salaries last summer, the BBC has received about 230 individual pay claims, of which a “huge number” are from news division staff, the source said.

Fewer than half of these claims have been dealt with so far, but of the salary revisions offered to staff whose grievances were upheld, it is understood that none have been made on an equal pay basis.

“No-one to my knowledge has had a pay change because of an equal pay issue,” said the source.

“[BBC management] are trying to say that no-one has an equal pay claim.

“They say: ‘We have reflected upon your pay and think you are due a pay revision, but in no way is this an equal pay case’.

“It doesn’t appear that anyone has been given pay parity.”

BBC journalist Carrie Gracie accused the BBC of a “secretive and illegal” pay culture in an open resignation letter from her role as China editor at the start of the year, raising further questions around BBC pay.

An independent audit of on-air talent salaries, published on Wednesday, revealed a 6.3 per cent gender pay gap but “no evidence of gender bias”.

It followed a report of off-air staff salaries in October last year that found a 9.3 per cent gender pay gap but “no systemic discrimination against women” in the corporation’s pay arrangements.

BBC director general Tony Hall has said that he does not believe that the BBC, which like all UK companies is obliged by law to abide by the Equal Pay Act 1970, has acted illegally on pay.

He told Channel 4 News: “I don’t believe there has been illegality in the BBC to the point where someone said: ‘You’re a woman therefore you’re going to be paid less’.”

Press Gazette has learned that a number of staff raising pay grievances had been told to wait until the latest review had completed. Some have been “parked” since the summer, said the source.

Now the final pay audit has been published, equal pay claims could flood in.

“The number of people claiming on equal pay grounds could be in the hundreds,” said the source.

“But the BBC doesn’t want to deal with them as pay claims because then it will have to pay back pay [staff] and it doesn’t want to do that.”

They added: “I have not seen any sign that the BBC has resolved any pay grievances in line with equality law. I have yet to be convinced that they are dealing with them at all properly.”

A BBC spokesperson told Press Gazette: “Since July, around 230 individual cases have been raised by both men and women working on and off air.

“We have addressed close to half of them and are working through the rest with the people concerned. Where revisions need to be made we’ll make them.”

Gracie told MPs this week that the BBC was in a “terrible position of not being willing to acknowledge an equal pay problem with women” and that as a result it had been “effectively forced to belittle” the contributions of women staff over decades.

Gracie, who has worked at the BBC for 30 years, said that when it comes to equal pay, BBC management “can’t sort this out”. She also warned that “the damage to the BBC would be so intense” if pay disputes ended up at employment tribunal hearings.

The BBC has about 20,000 staff in total. The news division is facing cuts of £80m by 2021.

Picture: Reuters/Neil Hall

Former Today programme editor Jamie Angus has been appointed BBC World Service director.

Angus joined the BBC in 1999 and has previously served as acting editor of Newsnight, editor of the World at One and The World This Weekend, and editor of Daily News programmes on World Service radio.

He was editor of Radio 4’s Today programme during the period when the morning broadcast reached record audience figures of 7.4m listeners.

Angus most recently held the position of deputy director of the World Service Group and editorial director of BBC Global News.

In his new role, Angus will lead the BBC World Service, BBC World News and BBC.com, as well as BBC Monitoring.

He replaces Fran Unsworth, who moved to the position of director of news and current affairs at the corporation in December.

Angus said:“There’s never been a greater need globally for the BBC’s independent, creative and engaging news services.

“With the expansion to 41 language services, we are already reaching new audiences everywhere; our English services on TV, radio and online remain the gold standard for international news.

“With global concern growing about disinformation, ‘fake news’ and media literacy, the World Service Group has never been in a stronger position to show the way forward.

“We spot the stories, see the patterns and make sense of the world for our audiences. I’m very pleased to be able to lead that mission in the coming years.”

Picture: BBC

Almost 250 BBC staff members have signed a letter calling for full pay transparency at the corporation and the publication of every employee’s salary and benefits.

The letter, signed by 156 women and 86 men and published in The Guardian, also calls for the BBC to release information indicating how pay is decided and how promotion and recruitment processes are carried out.

This, it says, would enable the BBC to to live up to its values of transparency and accountability and restore the trust of both staff and audiences in the corporation.

Presenters and journalists including Victoria Derbyshire, Carrie Gracie, Samira Ahmed, Mariella Frostrup, Naga Munchetty and Dan Snow signed the letter alongside numerous off-screen colleagues.

It reads: “It’s time for full pay transparency at the BBC. Transparency about what everyone earns, about how pay is decided, and also about promotion and recruitment across all areas of the corporation.

“There is no legal bar to doing this. The BBC just needs to change the expectations of people working here by telling them that in future their pay will be transparent.

“The BBC says it wants to be ‘the most transparent organisation when it comes to pay’. Full publication of individual salaries and benefits (and other payments through BBC Studios and all commercial arms) would have a lasting positive impact on the culture of the BBC and beyond.”

The letter says that full pay transparency would be the “fastest, cheapest and fairest way” to tackle unequal pay at the BBC and would uncover pay discrimination against ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, LGBT+ people, or on the basis of age.

Staff say it could also indicate pay differences linked to characteristics which are not legally protected but which should be monitored, such as class, educational background or regional origin.

A recent review of pay for BBC on-air talent found an overall median gender pay gap of 6.8 per cent (4.3 per cent mean pay gap) and “no evidence of gender bias in pay decision-making”.

Former BBC China editor Gracie, who resigned in January after speaking out over being paid less than male international editors, accused the BBC of a “secretive and illegal pay culture”.

She told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that the corporation was unwilling to acknowledge its “equal pay problem” and a result had “belittled” women’s contributions for decades.

BBC director general Tony Hall told the committee he felt “very strongly” about wanting to “fix” equality at the BBC and repeated the corporation’s aim to have a 50/50 split of men and women on-air by 2020 “or earlier”.

He said: “I profoundly believe the BBC needs to demonstrate – under the law – that we are paying equally.

The letter argued that full pay transparency could even save the BBC money, as the top salaries would become harder to justify.

The BBC revealed in July last year it has more than 40 journalists, with Jeremy Vine and John Humphrys at the top end of the scale, who are paid more than the Prime Minister’s £150,000 salary.

A BBC spokesperson said: “We already have a project planned to look at transparency at the BBC which will consider – among other things – whether all salaries from the licence fee should be published and what other measures are necessary that wouldn’t put the BBC at a competitive disadvantage.

“The BBC already publishes more information about itself, its operations and its staff than any other broadcaster. We are already committed to going further and faster than any other organisation in closing our gender pay gap.

“We have set out real targets and have announced a project based led by Donalda McKinnon to do all we can to help the progression and culture for women within the organisation.

“BBC Studios and Worldwide are fully commercial businesses and are not funded by the licence fee. It’s not public money. They have to compete in the commercial market on a level playing field against other commercial business.

“It would be wrong to put them at a competitive disadvantage at a time we should be doing all we can to support British content against the global [US] west coast giants.”

The National Union of Journalists has supported BBC staff’s request for full pay transparency.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, said: “Tony Hall has already committed the BBC to becoming the most transparent organisation on pay – the easiest way to properly fulfil this commitment is to commit to publishing the earnings of all who work at the Corporation.

“Learning the depths of pay inequity that have existed in the BBC has led to a crisis of trust amongst staff – rebuilding that trust requires a significant shake up in the organisation’s pay culture, and genuine transparency would be a first step in achieving that.”

Picture: Reuters/Neil Hall

Two of Westminster’s top female journalists say they want to make women’s voices more widely heard as the lobby moves away from the traditional “boys’ club” culture of Westminster.

The Telegraph’s Kate McCann and Buzzfeed’s Emily Ashton, both senior political correspondents, recently started their new posts as chairman of the press gallery and chairman of the lobby – the body of political journalists based at Parliament – respectively.

It is the first time women have filled both positions at the same time, coming coincidentally in the same year as the centenary of female suffrage.

Speaking to Press Gazette for International Women’s Day today, Ashton (pictured) said she hopes such a line-up will soon become unnoteworthy.

According to the most recent listings on the Parliamentary Press Gallery website, around 39 per cent of its members across all divisions are women, with 153 men and 60 women.

Ashton said: “I don’t really want it to be a big thing. I hope that in the future it just becomes the norm for two women to do it and it’s not even mentioned. A woman can do the job just as well as a man and that’s all there is to it really.

“But if this helps shine a light on the fact that women are in the lobby and doing political journalism then maybe young female students might think ‘great, that’s a job for me actually’.

“If it helps to raise awareness, that’s great.”

McCann, who hopes to use her year in charge to get more female voices at press gallery lunches and help organise more mentoring for young people, said their dual roles are “really important” as people are becoming more aware of how few women are in the lobby.

“We need to be able to show as an organisation that the lobby isn’t an all-boys club, because it isn’t, and that it’s not a closed shop,” she said.

“This year you’ve got two women – you’ve also got a print journalist and someone from an online publication, Buzzfeed, which is also really important to show we can move with the times.

“And it helps people feel a bit more like there are people like them. I don’t have any family members who had ever done journalism before, I didn’t study journalism, I didn’t do a City course, so I think it helps people feel like they could maybe do this job.”

McCann interned at the Guardian before getting a staff job at the paper. She then headed to City AM – where she joined the lobby – and has also worked at the Sun.

Last week, Theresa May used her Westminster Correspondents’ Dinner speech to credit both McCann and Ashton and call for “a lot more ambitious women in top jobs”.

Although both women emphasised how supportive their male lobby colleagues are, McCann noted sexism from MPs can still be a concern.

She said: “When I first started, a lot of MPs assumed I didn’t know anything at all about politics, so often, if you were in a conversation or a briefing with a male journalist, they would focus their conversation almost entirely on those other male journalists and they wouldn’t look at me at all.

“I think a lot of that is to do with [them] either thinking I didn’t know what they were talking about or I didn’t really have anything to say and that can undermine your confidence a bit – you feel like you’re not allowed to be part of those conversations.

“That was difficult in the beginning, but I think as I’ve been here a bit longer and I’ve got more confident and I feel I do have something to say that doesn’t happen as much.”

McCann also found that, in the traditional lobby culture of late night socialising with contacts, MPs can sometimes overstep boundaries when “lines are blurred”.

“I have encountered sexism in parliament from MPs and people in senior positions. Sometimes it’s ignorance, sometimes it’s deliberate and sometimes it’s just going a little bit too far,” she said.

Ashton said she has not personally experienced sexism from MPs but is pleased the “blokey culture” of Westminster is changing.

For both women, motherhood is an important aspect of their careers. Ashton has a 16-month-old daughter named Lucy, while McCann said she wants to have children and continue doing her job.

Both felt one of the difficulties facing young parents in Westminster – not only women, although it affects them disproportionately as they often bear the brunt of the childcare – is the long hours.

Ashton said: “You do see women in journalism teams but you don’t see many female political editors and I think part of the reason for that is the long hours that journalism involves.

“You could say that about any industry but journalism in particular – if you’re working at a newspaper – requires you to be there for deadlines, 7pm or 8pm at night. How can you do that with a baby at home?”

McCann said: “The lobby definitely needs to make a shift towards the idea that we are not just journalists we are also parents, or we might have people that we have to look after or we might want to have children.

“So there needs to be the idea that it’s okay to do that and it doesn’t make you any less of a journalist or any less dedicated to your job.”

Ashton spoke about a recent parliamentary debate on baby leave for MPs as an example of why it is important to have women’s voices in senior political roles and in journalism.

She said: “The more women you have in the lobby the more you can write about these issues. It’s not that men aren’t interested, but women can see stories from different angles and better reflect the readership.

“I’m not saying women should be pigeonholed and only write about women’s issues, but if you only have men writing about politics then you might miss out on certain stories [because] it doesn’t even occur to them that that is a story.”

McCann encouraged more young women to enter political journalism and join the lobby to keep the institution going “at a time when newspapers are under attack from all sides”.

“The way to do that is to get more people to join it and to get people to want to join it and make it accessible and make it more appealing,” she said.

“The only we do that is to get more young women in, more young men in, and get people to come and love it as much as we do.”

Picture: Emily Ashton

The BBC has appealed to the United Nations in Geneva for the first time in its history to protect the human rights of BBC journalists – and their families – covering Iran.

It follows what the corporation describes as “years of persecution and harassment” by the Iranian authorities against staff and contributors to the London-based service, which escalated last year.

A report to be read out at the UN Human Rights Council today claims some BBC Persian staff have been photographed while in London to “impress upon their families that their relative was being watched”.

BBC director general Tony Hall said: “The BBC is taking the unprecedented step of appealing to the United Nations because our own attempts to persuade the Iranian authorities to end their harassment have been completely ignored.

“In fact, during the past nine years, the collective punishment of BBC Persian Service journalists and their families has worsened. This is not just about the BBC – we are not the only media organisation to have been harassed or forced to compromise when dealing with Iran.

“In truth, this story is much wider: it is a story about fundamental human rights. We are now asking the community of nations at the UN to support the BBC and uphold the right to freedom of expression.”

Last year the Iranian government opened a criminal investigation into 152 current and former BBC Persian journalists on charges of “conspiracy against national security”.

A court order freezing the assets of BBC Persian staff, preventing them and their families from passing on or selling assets – from property or cars – was also passed by Iranian authorities.

“This is a deprivation of human rights which is against the Iranian constitution,” the BBC said in a statement at the time as it filed an “urgent complaint” to the United Nations (UN).

The dispute appears to centre on 2009 Iranian presidential elections when the government accused foreign powers of interference. It was also the year BBC Persian began broadcasting.

Represented by Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Jennifer Robinson of Doughty Street Chambers, the BBC World Service today filed an urgent appeal to UN Special Rapporteurs David Kaye and Asma Jahangir on behalf of BBC Persian staff.

This week BBC journalists will address the Human Rights Council session for the first time to call upon member states to “take action to protect BBC staff and to ensure their ability to report freely”, according to a BBC spokesperson.

Working with the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the BBC has organised a series of events at a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva this week about BBC Persian.

Jeremy Dear, deputy general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, said: “For many years Iranian journalists have suffered, been forced into hiding, fled into exile, been arrested, jailed and subjected to routine harassment, violence and intimidation.

“Iranians now increasingly turn to the international media to find out what is happening in their own country. Targeting family members in Iran in an attempt to silence journalists working in London must be stopped – the international community must act now.”

Today in Geneva, the late UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran, Asma Jahangir’s report will be tabled and discussed at the Human Rights Council.

It states: “In the course of her missions, the Special Rapporteur also met individuals working for the Persian Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

“They described how they and their families in the Islamic Republic of Iran had been harassed by the authorities, and threatened if they continued to work for the Service. Some were arbitrarily arrested, detained, and subjected to travel bans.

“In August 2017, a court in Tehran issued an injunction banning 152 members of staff, former employees, and contributors from carrying out financial transactions in the country on account of “conspiracy against national security”.

“Until the time of writing, the injunction has not been lifted and harassment has continued. The Special Rapporteur was disturbed after hearing the accounts of the staff members, observing that many preferred to talk individually and in strict privacy.

“It has been also reported that some staff members have been photographed while in London to impress upon their families that their relative was being watched.

“The level of fear that Iranians have whether inside the country or outside of it can be illustrated by the fact that the staff members have endured such intimidation for over twelve months.

“In October 2017, Special Procedure mandate holders issued a statement calling upon the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease all legal action against the staff and their families, and to cease the use of repressive legislation against independent journalism.”

Picture: Reuters/Neil Hall

The BBC will not send any management representatives to the next Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee hearing into BBC pay despite being asked by MPs to appear.

Damian Collins MP, chair of the committee, described the BBC’s response as “highly disappointing” and said the corporation had “many outstanding questions” to answer on its use of personal service companies.

But the BBC insisted it is doing a “huge amount of work” behind the scenes and will appear before the DCMS again soon once they have considered any new evidence which comes up at Tuesday’s session.

Earlier this month, BBC presenters told The Telegraph they were pressured to set up personal service companies to help the corporation save millions by not having to pay National Insurance contributions.

Several presenters are now being hit by tax demands from HMRC and allege the BBC was taking part in “industrial-level tax avoidance”.

Four broadcasters and journalists will appear at the oral evidence session on BBC pay next week when MPs are likely to quiz them about the use of personal service companies at the BBC.

They are: Liz Kershaw, radio broadcaster with BBC 6 Music, Kirsty Lang and Paul Lewis, both BBC journalists and broadcasters, and Stuart Linnell MBE, radio broadcaster with BBC Radio Northampton.

MPs will then question tax lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC from Devereux Chambers about the practice.

Collins said: “It is highly disappointing that the BBC Management did not see fit to send anyone to give evidence at this session given there are many outstanding questions for them to answer on Personal Service Companies.

“Further, the BBC’s answers to our written questions on pay data were not particularly illuminating, referencing older data and offering nothing new. We are likely to have some robust written questions for the BBC following the session on Tuesday.”

A BBC spokesperson said: “We appeared before the Select Committee very recently, and are doing a huge amount of work to make progress in this area.

“As we have told the Committee we are open to appearing before them again once we have more to update them on and have had a chance to consider any new evidence presented on Tuesday.”

The first oral evidence session on BBC pay took place on 31 January, when the BBC’s former China editor Carrie Gracie – who resigned earlier that month over equal pay – told MPs the corporation’s unwillingness to acknowledge its “equal pay problem” had forced it to “belittle” contributions by women for decades.

Picture: Reuters/Neil Hall 

Radio 4 presenter Kirsty Lang said she felt “betrayed” by the BBC after it told her to go freelance for tax purposes, resulting in her working  throughout her own cancer treatment, MPs were told today.

Lang also revealed she had continued working immediately after her stepdaughters’s death because she was unable to take bereavement leave under her new employment status.

Front Row co-host Lang, also a former BBC World newsreader, asked in 2013 if she could go part-time and work only on Radio 4’s Front Row for family reasons.

She asked to keep her staff job, partially to stay on the final salary pension scheme, but was told she had to go freelance and set up a Personal Service Company as other Radio 4 presenters had also done.

Lang told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in a hearing on BBC pay that she “didn’t really feel I had a choice” due to her family situation.

HM Revenue and Customs is currently investigating claims that more than 100 BBC presenters have not paid the proper amount of tax, as many say they were pushed to set up PSCs or face losing their jobs.

The BBC yesterday announced it would set up a “fair and independent process” to handle cases in which presenters believe the corporation bears some liability over missing tax and National Insurance Contributions.

Lang, who has presented Front Row since 2004, appeared alongside three other presenters before MPs this morning, which BBC management refused to attend.

On setting up a PSC, she said: “I certainly didn’t say to myself ‘oh great, this is a way to avoid tax’ – in fact I was quite frightened.

“I was frightened of getting sick and I was worried about the pension and there was no way I could even begin to match what I got for the final salary pension.

“Sure enough all my worst fears came true. Not long after I went freelance my stepdaughter died suddenly, I was unable to take bereavement leave.

“In fact I went back and did a first show even before even her funeral because I had to get some money in.

“Two years after that I was diagnosed with cancer, I had surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, I worked the whole way through. I had one month off at the end of chemo actually.”

Last April, Lang – like some other presenters – was told she would be now employed by the BBC for tax purposes and put on the Pay As You Earn system, but that she would still not receive sickness or holiday benefits.

Under PAYE, an employer deducts tax and national insurance contributions from wages or workplace pensions before paying employees.

Since the changeover, Lang said she had neither received a contract or any payslips, so is unaware of what is being deducted from her salary.

She said: “I entered into this whole arrangement in good faith, I trusted the BBC, I was proud to be part of the BBC and I feel like I’ve been hung out to dry, I feel betrayed.

“And I ask this: Where is their duty of care towards me and my colleagues?

“I speak for many people in this situation, I have seen many women presenters being deprived of maternity leave, I have seen many colleagues being deprived of sick pay and we keep on doing it because we love the job.

“And that’s the other thing – where else am I going to go… there is only one Radio 4. And I love my job, I love Front Row, LBC doesn’t do an arts show, as far as I know, I didn’t really have much choice.”

Lang claimed she was told many times by the BBC that “there are plenty of other people who would happily step into your shoes”.

She added: “I wish I was on staff, I wish I’d never left staff. I certainly really wish I’d never left the final salary pension scheme because I’m 55 now and those things loom quite high in my mind.”

BBC Radio Northampton presenter Stuart Linnell agreed, telling MPs: “People in this situation, and they are people, they are not cans of beans which some people in the various rights and contracts departments seem to regard them as, they trusted the BBC.

“The last thing they expected was to find themselves in this situation working for the most trusted broadcaster in the world, a broadcaster they are proud to say they worked for.”

Their words echoed those of 21 other BBC presenters who submitted written evidence to the committee this week.

One anonymous female BBC presenter said the stress of the BBC’s changing pay arrangements in the past year had contributed to deterioration in her mental health and even a suicide attempt.

She said: “I was forced to work under three month contracts for much of 2017 until they told us collectively that we were out of contract and must now be PAYE, but with none of the benefits BBC staff enjoy. No sick pay, no holiday, no permanent contract.

“I was told that if I didn’t sign the contract that I was unhappy with I would not get paid. I sit opposite another local radio presenter who does the same job as me in a ‘double header’. As a permanent member of staff he gets £4,000 more, five weeks’ holiday, pension and sick pay. He is male.

She added: “My mental health deterioration is absolutely linked to the increased stress of working for the BBC. I’m grateful to do a job I love.

“I have always loved working for the BBC but the way they have behaved has reduced me to more than tears. It’s one of the factors that three days ago took me into my loft where I tried to hang myself.”

BBC Radio Oxford presenter Charles Nove said in his written evidence he is “constantly worried” he may face homelessness if the BBC pursues the recovery of tax it “unilaterally decided” to pay on his behalf.

Another anonymous presenter said stress was a contributory factor to their serious physical and mental illness, resulting in them spending four and a half weeks in hospital with near-fatal sepsis.

In a statement the BBC said: “We’ve always tried to balance our responsibilities to presenters with our responsibility to spend the licence fee appropriately.

“Our responsibility for the stewardship of public money means that we cannot assume the tax liability of others in the absence of a compelling justification for doing so.

“However, following concerns raised about the use of PSCs for BBC engagements dating from the late nineties, the BBC believes it is appropriate to look again at these issues.

“When individuals are contracted as freelancers through personal service companies they have been responsible for their own tax affairs. Many will also work for a number of different organisations outside the BBC.

“Contracting via PSCs has also protected the licence fee because until last year it was the responsibility of PSCs to ensure they paid the correct tax and National Insurance.

“But we are announcing action because we have recently been challenged as to whether there are any circumstances in which it is appropriate for financial liability arising from any misclassification of tax and National Insurance Contributions in PSCs to be the responsibility of the BBC, irrespective of the legal position.”

Picture: Parliament TV

The BBC has opened an official news bureau in Lagos, which will serve as the home for three new services in Nigerian language Igbo, Pidgin and Yoruba regions.

The new bureau can host up to 200 people and features a TV studio and two  radio studios. It follows the biggest expansion to the BBC World Service since the 1940s.

The move means the BBC’s international news will now be available in five languages across Nigeria, where it claims an audience of 36m – its largest in any country.

The BBC’s investment in Nigeria has created over 100 jobs in Lagos and the corporation says it will launch a new mentorship and internship programme to recruit the next generation of West African talent.

The bureau will be led by the BBC’s head of West Africa Oluwatoyosi Ogunseye, a former investigative journalist who will manage BBC Afrique, Hausa, Igbo, Pidgin and Yoruba.

Ogunseye siad:  “It’s a great honour to be part of this expansion and I’m so proud to be leading the teams in Nigeria.

“We will big on original journalism that impacts the lives of Nigerians at home and abroad. We are expanding our editorial offer to cover politics, culture, business, health, investigations, among others.

“We will focus more on young people and women, ensuring that we cover Nigeria and the whole of West Africa like never before. We’ll remain true to our ideals and values of objectivity, truth and impartiality.”

The BBC also announced that it would be partnering with Nigerian news outlet Channels Television on Connect Africa as part of the move and will air a new English language current affairs programme, set to launch later this year.

It will also launch new programming for Africa this year in English, Hausa, French and Swahili, with some of the TV teams joining the Lagos bureau.

BBC World Service director Jamie Argus added: “It’s wonderful to be here to open this bureau, which will be the headquarters for our operation across West Africa.

“It will be a beacon for our journalism and as such I am delighted to announce our mentorship and internship scheme for up-and-coming journalists.

“This is part of BBC’s contribution to the growth of media best practice and professionalism in Nigeria, and the fight against fake news – and we’ll benefit from the young journalists’ insight into West Africa.

“The World Service delivers accurate, impartial and independent news to all countries. We spot the stories, see the patterns and make sense of your world.

“We promise to remain your most trusted source of news in the years to come.”

BBC Radio 4’s Sarah Montague and Martha Kearney will do a straight job swap, with Montague taking over lead presenting duties on World At One and Kearney joining the Today programme’s main roster.

The changes will take effect next month.

Kearney, who has presented World at One for more than a decade, described the move to Today as a “thrill”, while Montague said that after 18 years on the show she was “ready for a new challenge”.

BBC controller of daily news programmes, Gavin Allen, said: “Sarah and Martha are brilliant journalists and we’re delighted they will continue to analyse and drive the news for our many millions of radio listeners”.

BBC Radio 4 controller Gwyneth Williams added: “Both Martha and Sarah are formidable presenters admired by millions of loyal Radio 4 listeners.”

Former BBC Newsnight political editor and Woman’s Hour presenter Kearney, said: “I have woken up to the Today programme for as long as I can remember so it’s a thrill to be joining the BBC’s flagship news programme.

“After 11 happy years on the World at One, I’m looking forward to a new challenge – to draw on my years of political journalism but also to explore my other interests on air too.”

Montague is a former Sky News and BBC News channel presenter and a regular presenter of BBC World’s Hardtalk for 20 years. She has been a presenter on Today since 2001.

She said: “I am very excited to be moving to the World at One. It is a programme I have long admired and, much as I love the Today programme, after 18 years on it, I am ready for a new challenge and looking forward to the experience of presenting a programme when I am awake.”

Picture: BBC

The BBC has appointed its first commissioning editor for podcasts to lead the “podcasting revolution” as the corporation begins to target younger listeners who are less likely to listen to live broadcasts.

Jason Phipps will leave his role as head of audio at The Guardian, which he has held since 2014, to begin leading the BBC’s podcast strategy in May.

Phipps, a former BBC producer, said: “It’s an incredible time to re-join the BBC and be part of a podcasting revolution well underway.

“For podcasters and everyone in the audio community there is a sense that we are at the foothills of an incredible period of innovation and re-invigoration of radio.

“My role will, I hope, be an opportunity for a new generation of native podcasters to deliver great content to hungry ears across the UK.”

At the time of writing, the BBC had four entries in the iTunes podcast chart’s top ten: Friday Night Comedy’s The Now Show, Desert Island Discs, Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review, and The Archers.

Phipps will build upon these established titles while simultaneously leading the creation of new series designed purely as podcasts and not for radio broadcast.

The BBC has already begun creating podcasts which are “different in tone and form” to on-air radio and existing titles.

These include series which exist solely as podcasts such as Political Thinking With Nick Robinson and Radio 4’s GrownUpLand.

Shows which can be heard as podcasts first, like Radio 4 conspiracy thriller Tracks, and those which exist completely outside the BBC’s radio network, such as The Boring Talks and Unpopped.

Ben Chapman, head of digital for radio, said: “I’m delighted Jason will be joining us in this important new role as his expertise in the podcast sector is unquestionable.

“Across BBC Radio we’re investing and experimenting in what we’re doing digitally to reinvent our brilliant audio for those less likely to listen on air and making sure younger listeners can enjoy quality, distinctive BBC content when and how they want to.”

The BBC was the first British broadcaster to release podcasts when it made Radio 4’s In Our Time available to download in 2004.

It is now one of the largest podcast producers in the world, with around 240m downloads of BBC podcasts last year.

Phipps is returning to the corporation after working in podcast production and commissioning for a decade, including as a BBC producer for eight years before he joined The Guardian as an executive producer in 2007.

As head of audio at The Guardian, he held overall responsibility for the title’s podcasts produced in London, the US and Australia, and commissions from across its roster of podcasts.

Picture: BBC

Monocle magazine and radio station has defended its use of editorial internships after a Guardian article by a former intern claimed she had begun legal action for “unpaid wages”.

The magazine’s lawyers say they are not aware of a legal claim at this time, despite a Guardian article by freelance Amalia Illgner, published this week,  headlined: “Why I’m suing over my dream internship.”

In the first-person long read, Illgner claims to “have taken the first step in legal proceedings to claim my unpaid wages”.

Monocle has stressed to Press Gazette that its internships are not unpaid and that they comply with the terms of the national minimum wage of £7.50 an hour, although Illgner said she was paid just £30 a day.

Illgner said her role during the internship at Monocle’s London headquarters was to help Monocle 24 prepare for its 7am radio show by writing detailed research briefings for producers, ferrying post between floors, fact checking copy and transcribing interviews.

She wrote: “Sure, £30 a day works out at around the same hourly rate as an illegally exploited UK garment factory worker, but when I was accepted last year, I was thrilled.”

She said she was told by the managing editor during her interview that she would be encouraged to pitch and write articles throughout the internship, but she would be unpaid for anything published.

However she said she “fell out of love” with the internship when she was asked to fact-check her own front page article for Monocle’s Summer Weekly newspaper on a Saturday, for which she was not being paid.

She wrote: “Halfway through my internship, I landed my first front-page piece for Monocle’s Summer Weekly newspaper. It was a personal coup, but after 20 hours of research and writing – done in my own time – the thrill of a byline paled against the glaring fact that I was not being paid for the story.

“The privilege of working for almost nothing no longer seemed like a viable way to get ahead. A few months later, I would start proceedings against Monocle for unpaid wages.”

She added: “Working that Saturday afternoon for free to help a $47m publishing company make its deadlines, I became convinced that something had to be done.”

A Monocle spokesperson said: “Monocle is not aware of legal action being taken by the author of this article. Should there be any, it would not be something on which we would publicly comment.

“The author came to us last year. She was impressively insistent in  expressing her wish to work for us specifically as an intern. This was despite the fact that she was outside the typical demographic for such a position. During her time with us she never made any complaint.

“We remain proud of our internship scheme which has provided a launchpad for many young people to move into fulfilling and rewarding careers in publishing and journalism. Naturally we are sorry that Amalia now feels it didn’t quite work out for her.

“Our scheme remains constantly under review to ensure that it is fair in offering both opportunity and reward to as many people as possible. The pay of the company’s current interns is compliant with all legal requirements, and with the terms of the national minimum wage.”

Based in London, with six other bureaux around the world, Monocle magazine is published ten times a year and claims to sell more than 81,000 copies per issue, with 18,000 subscribers.

Three editorial internship adverts are currently listed on the Monocle website, for the Tokyo, Toronto and Hong Kong bureaux, the latter of which is the only one to give details of its working hours and pay arrangements.

Expenses will be covered for the full-time five-day-a-week position, which will last for a minimum of two months.

UK Government guidance says an intern is entitled to the national minimum wage if they count as a worker.

This would mean they have a contract (which does not need to be written) or other arrangement to do work for a reward which is money or a benefit in kind – for example the promise of a contract or future work.

It also means they have to turn up for work even if they don’t want to and their employer has to have work for them to do as long as the contract or arrangement lasts.

The Government website says: “An intern’s rights depend on their employment status. If an intern is classed as a worker, then they’re normally due the national minimum wage.

“Internships are sometimes called work placements or work experience. These terms have no legal status on their own.

“If an intern does regular paid work for an employer, they may qualify as an employee and be eligible for employment rights.”

Channel 4 News presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy has said his new podcast offers a “different approach” to the “punchy” interviews he is known for.

Ways to Change the World sees Guru-Murthy undertake hour-long conversations with guests with room to explore the “big ideas influencing how we think, act and live”, he told Press Gazette.

The first two episodes, featuring former supermodel Lily Cole and Israeli ambassador to the UK Mark Regev, were released last week, with Green Party leader Caroline Lucas and author Reni Eddo-Lodge set to appear.

Guru-Murthy said he wanted the podcast to be “deliberately broad” in its approach, adding: “We don’t just want to go for the usual suspects of people that pop up on these sorts of podcasts.

“We’re trying to go a bit broader. There will be artists, musicians, politicians, writers, actors and whoever we think has got something to say.”

Guru-Murthy joined Channel 4 News in 1998 and is the second longest-serving presenter on the programme after Jon Snow.

Hosting a podcast was something Guru-Murthy said was one of many projects he wanted to do as a way of getting away from the type of interviews he is usually associated with on air.

“At the moment, so many people that are used to the short-form interview and your audience are so much more used to consuming it,” he said. “You can often predict where an interview is going now before it’s even started.”

He said interviews on the news are usually “interrogating somebody and trying to do a punchy interview that gets to the facts or holds somebody to account: asking them a specific set of things that you’re after for a few minutes”.

Podcasts, on the other hand, are like “popping out for an hour and dropping out of the pace of normal news and radio”.

“When you don’t have that pace and aggression that you get in the normal news programme, it’s kind of immersive,” said Guru-Murthy.

He said he sees the podcast as a way of “getting to grips with a subject”, adding: “When you get to the end of it you feel like you’ve learned something.”

There are estimated to be more than 500,000 podcasts worldwide, according to Variety. In 2017 Ofcom claimed that some 24 per cent of the British public said they had listened to a podcast episode.

So where does Guru-Murthy see Ways to Change the World’s place in this landscape?

“I think there’s clearly a market out there,” he said. “People are keen with the recognition factor of Channel 4 News, me and the people we have on the programme.

“We are deliberately telling them this is a bit different, this is not the same Channel 4 interview you’ve seen a million times before.

“There’s a lot of demand for it and people on social media are certainly saying this sounds interesting with the kinds of people we might want to interview.

“Viewers are also seeing it as an opportunity as a slightly different kind of offer as well.”

Guru-Murthy said the plan for the podcast is to “see how it goes then work it out”. It is recorded in the Channel 4 News office and, for Guru-Murthy, presents an opportunity to put out content in a way that would in times past have been much more difficult.

“In the old days, if you were someone like me who wanted to do an interview program, you’d have to wait for a commissioning editor to say: ‘Go off and do an interview show,’” he said.

“The stakes were much higher. There would be conversations about it about what kind of show it was, where it fit in and why you should be chosen to do it. Now you can just do it, that’s really the beauty of this.

“There have been lots of times you’ll have a chat either before or after the interview and you’ll talk about a lot of things that are off the agenda, but is really interesting.

“You just think why can’t you have a place for that? And now you can. You can just push it out there and say ‘let’s do it’“.

The BBC’s UK news editor has defended the corporation’s coverage of Brexit after accusations that a “deliberate blackout” had been imposed on coverage of protests attended by hundreds of thousands people.

Richard Burgess told Radio 4’s Feedback on Friday that both pro and anti- views on Brexit have been covered “significantly” across BBC output.

Regional news programme Look North ran coverage of the Leeds anti-Brexit march attended by Lord Andrew Adonis on 24 March as its second story, Burgess said, and the event was also covered online. Marches also took place in Edinburgh and Pontypridd on the same day.

Adonis has been a vocal critic of the BBC’s Brexit coverage.

Burgess said there are a number of factors that can determine whether marches are covered on BBC News, which were not fulfilled by the anti-Brexit protests.

“When we’re making an assessment of whether we’re going to cover a protest like this, it’s influenced by a number of factors,” he said.

“How much of a live issue is it, how much of a developing issue is it, is this march likely to bring about significant change, has it been influenced by very recent events, is there a real developing news story around this march?”

These criteria, Burgess added, were better fulfilled by the March For Our Lives demonstration in Washington DC which took place on the same day and received much wider coverage on the BBC.

He said: “That is exactly what I’m talking about – a developing story, an extraordinary march of hundreds of thousands of young people, emotional speeches, after a significant event recently, the Parkland high school shooting, and the potential of a change in the way America views their gun laws.”

Feedback received a number of emails from people “to express their suspicion that a deliberate blackout of anti-Brexit protests had been imposed,” according to host Roger Bolton.

One listener said: “I was pretty disgusted because they almost didn’t handle it at all,” while another “felt the BBC was failing in its duty of balance”.

A third listener asked: “How many thousands of Brexit demonstrators are required for the BBC to consider it newsworthy?”

Burgess responded: “I don’t think you can put an exact figure on it – that would be wrong – because you have to take into account what happens on the march as well.

“There might be an extremely powerful speech, there might be a significant event there, and I do think you have to take into account where it sits within the news agenda.”

He added that it is “quite difficult” to accurately estimate the number of people attending a march, after claims that his estimate of the Brexit protesters – “hundreds or thousands” – was lower than reported elsewhere.

He said he believed the news team needs to “continually look at this issue” and monitor when marches are happening to determine what level of coverage they get.

Later in its series, Feedback plans to look in depth at the BBC’s coverage of Brexit across its news coverage and other programming, Bolton said.

Following Burgess’s appearance on Feedback, Adonis, who attended Leeds for Europe’s anti-Brexit march, tweeted: “BBC News needs new leadership after BBC News Editor Richard Burgess’s astonishing ‘defence’ of BBC boycott of big anti-Brexit marches last weekend – rubbishing them as of little account on Feedback then giving Mr Farage huge coverage for his fish stunt two days later.”

Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage was among protesters who threw fish into the River Thames on 21 March to draw attention to the delay in leaving the Common Fisheries Policy as part of the UK’s Brexit transition deal, which they said would have a detrimental effect on the British fishing industry.

Speaking on Feedback, Burgess said: “I don’t think we did cover the Nigel Farage thing much –it wasn’t on the Six or Ten o’clock News.

“We might have done a little bit of marginal coverage.

“There’s a specific issue that’s developed since the transition deal was agreed around the Common Fisheries Policy. It did give us an opportunity to get into that issue.”

Picture: BBC

The BBC has set itself a target of having a 50:50 gender split of expert voices in its news, current affairs and topical programmes by April 2019.

BBC News at Six and Ten have already signed up to the 50:50 challenge alongside more than 80 other programmes, both within the news division and beyond.

These teams are now recording their own figures to reveal the gender split among the experts called in to give their opinion on topical issues.

The challenge follows in the footsteps of Outside Source, a BBC news programme which adopted the self-monitoring system in January 2017.

By April last year it had achieved a 50:50 gender split, which it has since maintained.

Presenter Ros Atkins, the driving force in the project alongside former editor Rebecca Bailey, said: “When Outside Source started this project the aim was to further improve the quality of our programme and bring fresh and engaging expert contributors to our audiences.

“I’m delighted that other teams across the BBC are just as passionate about this as I am and we’ve seen fantastic results from those already adopting the monthly monitoring approach so far.

“The ambition is to reach many more teams with the 50:50 challenge and ensure we have a strong network of contacts so we can increase the representation of expert female contributors on air.”

The BBC will produce a progress report on the project in April next year, according to BBC director of news Fran Unsworth.

She said: “We are starting to see a real transformation across the BBC, but we want to go further and faster.

“The success already delivered demonstrates the desire and commitment of BBC teams to lead the way on this important issue.

She added: “We can and are delivering change. The BBC is happy to share its experience of this project with other broadcasters and news organisations who might want to adopt a similar approach.”

The BBC explained that the quota does not include Government ministers, officials or representatives of organisations, but expert contributors “who comment or report on events or bring particular expertise to a news story or item”.

The gender split will be measured monthly for each programme, with the exception of those with a gender focus which “would not be expected to achieve a 50:50 balance because of the very nature of the programme’s editorial remit”.

Tony Hall, BBC director general, said: “This is a fantastic project that is already driving change. The results from programmes that have taken it up have been remarkable.

“Adopting it more widely will help transform the range of expert voices across the BBC.”

The BBC has already pledged to increase women on screen, on air and in lead roles to 50 per cent by 2020.

American academic and expert on Korean relations professor Robert Kelly made headlines when a video of his two young children gatecrashing his interview on BBC News (pictured) went viral.

Picture: BBC News/Screenshot

Conde Nast has the largest mean gender pay gap favouring men among all UK publishers and broadcasters, but, when the median is taken, The Economist Group has the largest pay gap.

Figures from all major national and regional news publishers, magazine publishers and broadcasters have been submitted ahead of the Government deadline of midnight last night.

In total, 91 per cent of UK-based media companies paid men more than women on average, based on the mean hourly rate, and 85 per cent paid men more in mean bonus pay.

The Independent and Buzzfeed are the only major news outfits not to share their gender pay gap figures. with both falling below the legally required 250 employees as of the snapshot date of 5 April 2017.

Vice Media has revealed its gender pay gap internally, but said that its UK operations are also too small to fall under the Government imperative – as is regional publisher Tindle Newspapers.

Scroll down for full gender pay gap figures

Conde Nast, publisher of Vogue, GQ, Glamour, Tatler and Vanity Fair magazines, reported a mean gender pay gap of 36.9 per cent.

Close behind is the Telegraph Media Group at 35 per cent, LBC owner Global Radio at 34.5 per cent and the Economist Group at 32.5 per cent.

But at Newsquest-owned NWN Media female employees are paid on average 13.2 per cent more than men and at Total Film and Techradar publisher Future, women are paid 4.3 per cent more than men.

The only other news operation to have a higher mean hourly pay rate for women than men was US broadcaster CNN, which has a newsgathering and production hub in the UK and reported a 2.8 per cent pay gap.

Press Gazette has used the mean average hourly pay in reporting the gender pay gap, for which the UK national average is 17.4 per cent according to the Office for National Statistics.

When the median is used, which compares the middle salary for men and women in a company, The Economist Group has the highest gender pay gap at 29.5 per cent. The UK national average (median) is 18.4 per cent.

By this same measure NWN Media has the highest gender pay gap favouring women at 85.2 per cent.

Midland News Association, publisher of the UK’s biggest-selling regional daily the Express & Star, technically has the smallest median gender pay gap at 3.1 per cent, favouring men.

Although the two could be said to be intertwined, the gender pay gap is not the same as equal pay for equal work, which is enforced by law. A number of companies have said their pay gap is the result of more men occupying higher-paid roles within the company than women.

Companies were also required to publish their bonus gap data, revealing the difference in the amount of bonus pay received for men and women.

ITN, encompassing ITV News, Channel 4 News, and 5 News employees, had the biggest mean bonus gap favouring men (77.2 per cent), followed by Daily Mail and Metro publisher DMG Media with a 61 per cent differential.

Future Publishing again had the most favourable figures for women, with a 316 per cent mean bonus gap in their favour, followed by regional news publishers Midland News Association, Newsquest and Archant.

Future’s bonus pay gap, paying women three times more than men, could be explained by the fact that its chief executive and chief financial officer are both women.

In median terms, CNN and ITN had the highest gender bonus pay gaps favouring men at 53 per cent and 50 per cent, respectively.

There were seven news publishers who paid women more than men in median bonus pay terms. Archant’s bonus pay gap was 256 per cent favouring women, with Future at 166 per cent and Midland News Association at 135.6 per cent.

The BBC, Telegraph Media Group, Conde Nast and Which? all had a bonus pay gap of 0 per cent by this measure.

See below for the full media gender pay and bonus pay gap figures ranked from highest to lowest, collated using data submitted on the Government portal and other available gender pay reports.

Positive figures favour men while negative figures favour women.

The mean gender pay gap breakdown among news publishers, broadcasters and magazines is as follows:

• Conde Nast – 36.9 per cent
• Telegraph Media Group – 35 per cent
• Global Radio – 34.5 per cent (encompassing LBC)
• Economist Group – 32.5 per cent
• Financial Times – 24.4 per cent
• William Reed – 23 per cent
• STV – 22.8 per cent
• DC Thomson Group – 21.7 per cent (22.9 per cent at DC Thomson, 16.48 per cent at Aberdeen Journals)
• Bloomberg – 20.4 per cent
• Reuters – 20.23 per cent
• Dennis Publishing – 19.7 per cent
• DMG Media – 19.6 per cent (encompassing the Daily Mail, Mail Online and Metro)
• ITN – 19.6 per cent (encompassing Channel 4 News, ITV News and Channel 5 News)
• Trinity Mirror – 18 per cent (5.8 per cent at Local World, 17.8 per cent at Mirror Group Newspapers and 19.4 per cent at Media Scotland)
• Hearst – 17.2 per cent
• Express Newspapers – 17 per cent
• Immediate Media – 16.1 per cent
• Time Inc – 16 per cent
• News UK – 15.2 per cent (24.8 per cent at The Sun, 14.3 per cent at The Times and 15.1 per cent at Talksport)
• Johnston Press – 15.1 per cent
• Centaur Media – 14.5 per cent
• Bauer Media – 13.9 per cent
• Evening Standard – 12.8 per cent
• Newsquest– 12 per cent (2 per cent at Newsquest Midlands South and 18 per cent at Newsquest (Herald & Times))
• Sky – 11.5 per cent (5.2 per cent within broadcasting division)
• Guardian News and Media – 11.3 per cent
• Archant – 11.1 per cent
• BBC – 10.7 per cent
• Haymarket – 10.6 per cent
• Midland News Association – 10.2 per cent
• Which? – 7.21 per cent
• CNN – –2.8 per cent
• Future Publishing – –4.3 per cent
• NWN Media – -13.2 per cent

The median gender pay gap breakdown among news publishers, broadcasters and magazines is as follows:

• The Economist Group – 29.5 per cent
• Reuters – 23.66 per cent
• CNN – 23.5 per cent
• Telegraph Media Group – 23.36 per cent
• Conde Nast – 23.3 per cent
• News UK – 22 per cent (19.6 per cent at The Sun, 12.7 per cent at The Times and 2.3 per cent at Talksport)
• Bloomberg – 21.9 per cent
• Global Radio – 20.5 per cent (encompassing LBC)
• Financial Times – 19.4 per cent
• Express Newspapers – 19 per cent
• William Reed – 18.5 per cent
• ITN – 18.2 per cent (encompassing Channel 4 News, ITV News and Channel 5 News)
• Sky – 17.5 per cent (8 per cent within broadcasting division)
• STV – 17.3 per cent
• Hearst – 17.17 per cent
• Bauer Media – 16.5 per cent
• Immediate Media – 16.4 per cent
• DMG Media – 15.4 per cent (encompassing the Daily Mail, Mail Online and Metro)
• Trinity Mirror – 15 per cent (7.1 per cent at Local World, 15.5 per cent at Media Scotland and 20.7 per cent at Mirror Group Newspapers)
• DC Thomson – 15 per cent
• Centaur Media – 14.8 per cent
• Future Publishing – 14.5 per cent
• Johnston Press – 13.9 per cent
• Time Inc – 13.8 per cent
• Guardian News & Media – 12.1 per cent
• BBC – 9.3 per cent
• Newsquest – 7 per cent (4 per cent at Newsquest Midlands South and 17 per cent at Newsquest (Herald & Times))
• Archant – 6.4 per cent
• Which? – 4.63 per cent
• Haymarket – 4.3 per cent
• Midland News Association – 3.1 per cent
• Dennis Publishing – -1.1 per cent
• Evening Standard – -5.8 per cent
• NWN Media – -85.2 per cent

The mean bonus pay gap breakdown among news publishers, broadcasters and magazines is as follows:

• ITN – 77.2 per cent
• DMG Media – 61 per cent (encompassing the Daily Mail, Mail Online and Metro)
• Haymarket – 59.2 per cent
• STV – 56 per cent
• DC Thomson – 54.9 per cent
• Dennis Publishing – 51.5 per cent
• Evening Standard – 51 per cent
• Bloomberg – 48.4 per cent
• Telegraph Media Group – 46.2 per cent
• Global Radio – 42.1 per cent (encompassing LBC)
• Reuters – 40.96 per cent
• Sky – 40.1 per cent
• Express Newspapers – 39.4 per cent
• Financial Times – 37.9 per cent
• CNN – 36.6 per cent
• NWN Media – 35 per cent
• Which? – 34.4 per cent
• William Reed – 28.8 per cent
• Time Inc – 28.1 per cent
• Immediate Media – 27.8 per cent
• The Economist Group – 26.4 per cent
• Centaur Media – 22.8 per cent
• BBC – 20.3 per cent
• Hearst – 11.8 per cent
• News UK – 11 per cent (encompassing The Sun, The Times and Talksport)
• Conde Nast – 10.6 per cent
• Bauer Media – 9.4 per cent
• Trinity Mirror – 3.4 per cent
• Johnston Press – 2.7 per cent
• Guardian News & Media – -1.1 per cent (favouring women)
• Archant – -8.5 per cent
• Newsquest – -17 per cent
• Midland News Association – –33 per cent
• Future – –316 per cent

The median bonus pay gap breakdown among news publishers, broadcasters and magazines is as follows:

• CNN – 53 per cent
• ITN – 50 per cent
• Centaur Media – 46.5 per cent
• DC Thomson – 43.2 per cent
• Dennis Publishing – 39 per cent
• Sky – 37.9 per cent
• STV – 34 per cent
• Bloomberg – 33.3 per cent
• Reuters – 33.11 per cent
• Haymarket – 31.5 per cent
• Financial Times – 28.3 per cent
• DMG Media – 26.7 per cent (encompassing the Daily Mail, Mail Online and Metro)
• Global Radio – 26.4 per cent (encompassing LBC)
• Time Inc – 23.4 per cent
• Immediate Media – 16.35 per cent
• News UK – 12.5 per cent (encompassing The Sun, The Times and Talksport)
• Evening Standard – 11.2 per cent
• NWN Media – 10 per cent
• The Economist Group – 7.5 per cent
• Express Newspapers – 7.3 per cent
• Bauer Media – 5.8 per cent
• Hearst – 3.8 per cent
• Trinity Mirror – 0.4 per cent
• Telegraph Media Group – 0 per cent
• BBC – 0 per cent
• Which? – 0 per cent
• Conde Nast – 0 per cent
• Johnston Press – –8.9 per cent
• William Reed – –13 per cent
• Guardian News & Media – –74.8 per cent
• Newsquest – –85 per cent
• Midland News Association – –135.2 per cent
• Future – –166 per cent
• Archant – –256 per cent

Picture: Pixabay

BBC Radio 4 presenter Sarah Montague has said she felt like a “sap” and was “incandescent with rage” after learning that she was paid less than her co-presenters on the Today programme.

Montague, who has now moved to present the World At One in a job swap with Martha Kearney, did not feature on the list of on-air talent paid more than £150,000 released by the BBC in July last year under Government edict.

She was paid £133,000 for her work on the show, while her co-presenters earned considerably more.

John Humphrys was paid up to £650,000 (making him the second highest-paid BBC journalist), Nick Robinson up to £300,000, Mishal Hussain up to £250,000 and Justin Webb up to £200,000.

Writing in the Sunday Times, Montague said that including her work on Hardtalk and other radio programmes she still was not paid more than £150,000.

She said: “I had long suspected that I was paid much less than my colleagues but until the pay disclosures I had no idea of the scale of that difference. Some years ago I was even assured by a manager that I was not the lowest paid on the programme.

“It is hard to communicate the range of emotions you feel on learning that you are paid so much less than people doing the same job as you.

“Pay is personal. It is a judgment of what you do every day and in my case had done for the previous two decades. It is the most powerful measure of what your employer thinks of you relative to your peers.

“Before the list was published I had thought there might be some moral high ground from taking less of the licence fee than others. What a fool I was. I felt nothing of the sort. Instead I felt a sap. For years I had been subsidising other people’s lifestyles.

“I also hadn’t clocked just how professionally damaging it would feel. When you are paid less it’s hard not to question your own ability and value to your employer.”

She added: “I felt incandescent with rage. Managers, who over the years had become friends, had known these figures and thought them acceptable.”

She implied that her salary was changed after the revelations last summer, but says that because she was told to set up a company when she joined the BBC more than 20 years ago, going freelance rather than joining staff, she hasn’t taken any workplace benefits or accrued a pension.

“Because of that, the pay gap will last my lifetime,” she said.

In the nine months since the BBC’s pay gap was revealed, Montague said her pay situation had yet to be fully resolved, but said moving to World at One meant she had a “deal for the future”. She also said she used the pay of previous World at One presenters “as a guide” in salary negotiations.

Motague, who is a member of the BBC Women group consisting of more than 150 producers and presenters, said the present situation had arisen because companies hadn’t been “open about pay”.

She added: “What’s needed is some light, perhaps even total transparency. That may be the fastest route for organisations such as the BBC to restore trust among staff and ensure the accountability of those setting pay.”

The BBC’s mean gender pay gap of 10.7 per cent is among the lowest across the UK news industry, it has subsequently been shown. The worst performer by this measure is magazine publisher Conde Nast.

Picture: BBC

BBC Radio 4’s Today programme broke accuracy guidelines in an interview with a prominent climate change sceptic, Ofcom has ruled.

There were “significant inaccuracies” in an interview with former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Nigel Lawson which took place on 10 August last year and received two Ofcom complaints.

Presenter Justin Webb interviewed Lord Lawson about the economics of renewable energies and the premiere of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel, a film about the former US vice president’s battle against climate change.

Lord Lawson (pictured) claimed “all the experts say there hasn’t been” an increase in extreme weather events.

He also said that according to official figures “during this past ten years… average world temperature has slightly declined”.

Ofcom ruled: “Neither statement was correct, or sufficiently challenged during the interview or subsequently during the programme.”

The BBC previously admitted it “should have challenged” Lord Lawson’s claims but said there were four other guests present on the programme to offer “different views”.

The BBC said it does not exclude minority views from its content, but aims to ensure sceptical opinions are not treated as if they are on an equal footing with the scientific consensus.

Ofcom acknowledged that the BBC partially upheld the complaints about the programme as breaches of the BBC’s own editorial guidelines, apologised to the complainants, and took a number of actions to address the breaches.

These included publishing a BBC News story online highlighting criticisms of and inaccuracies in the interview and examining some of Lord Lawson’s more contentious claims on the Today programme the following day.

The BBC also published a response to complaints on the BBC Complaints website, featured several complainants in Radio 4’s Feedback programme on 20 August, and reported its full response and action taken to the BBC News Group Board and the Editorial Standards and Complaints Committee.

However Ofcom’s “most significant concern” was that the BBC identified a second breach of standards in an item from 2014 – a previous appearance of Lord Lawson on the Today programme to discuss the same topic, on that occasion alongside a leading climate change scientist.

The BBC chose not to engage Lord Lawson in discussion with a scientist on the second occasion.

However Ofcom said neither programme sufficiently explained the minority position of Lord Lawson’s views in his introduction, meaning listeners received no clear signal that his view on the science of climate change runs counter to the weight of scientific opinion.

The Ofcom ruling said: “This omission meant listeners were not given the full facts about Lord Lawson’s stance on climate change. This was significant as his contribution appeared in the context of wide-ranging discussions on climate change throughout the programme.”

Ofcom said not enough importance had been placed on the possibility that a repeat of the 2014 breach may occur.

It added: “We acknowledge an editorial decision was taken not to interview Lord Lawson alongside a scientist, and the efforts made in the planning of the 10 August 2017 interview to tightly focus the discussion on the economics of climate change.

“However, given Lord Lawson’s well-known sceptical stance on the broader science of climate change, and the fact these issues were addressed in earlier interviews on the programme, the editorial team could have reasonably anticipated there was a risk that Lord Lawson might raise these arguments.

“In our view, the BBC should have planned for that eventuality and the presenter should have been prepared to provide challenge and context to Lord Lawson’s views as appropriate. The BBC’s failure to do this led to significant inaccuracies being broadcast in the interview with Lord Lawson in the programme on 10 August 2017.

“Critically, these inaccuracies were allowed to stand without challenge or clarification during that broadcast.”

Ofcom therefore concluded the programme was in breach of Rule 5.1, which says: “News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality”.

Ofcom also investigated whether the BBC was in breach of Rule 5.2, which says significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and quickly corrected on air.

Because the Today programme team examined some of Lord Lawson’s more contentious and inaccurate claims in an item the following day and on the BBC News website, the BBC was not found to be in breach of this rule.

Picture: Reuters/Toby Melville

The BBC has said it remains “confident” in its Brexit coverage after receiving a formal complaint from Labour Lord Andrew Adonis.

In a letter sent to director-general Tony Hall yesterday, Adonis urged the BBC to “revise and reissue” its editorial policy

He said the BBC’s coverage had been “fundamentally corrupted” because of its “desire to conciliate the Government and pro-Brexit campaign on the fundamental question of leaving the European Union”.

The corporation had “accepted the Government’s view that the [Brexit] decision is irreversible, when that is not in fact the case either in law or in public debate”, he said.

He claimed the BBC’s stance on Brexit was “in straightforward and serious breach” of the Royal Charter which sets out the BBC’s public purposes.

The BBC has said it is no longer reporting on “the binary choice which faced the electorate in the referendum” but is instead examining ongoing Brexit negotiations “and the impact of Brexit on the UK and the wider world”.

In a statement issued to the New Statesman and the Daily Express last week, the BBC also said: “We reject the suggestion that our coverage of Brexit is biased. We continue to feature a wide range of different voices, including those who are opposed to Brexit.”

In his letter, Adonis pointed out that Parliament has only officially authorised the Government to give notice of an intention to leave the EU.

When Brexit negotiations are complete, likely to be next year, Parliament is expected to have a say on the final deal.

“At that point, Parliament could vote to remain in the European Union or to call a referendum on the issue,” said Adonis.

“The ‘binary choice which faced the electorate in the referendum’ is therefore every bit as important now as it was during the referendum campaign. And it is a dereliction of your public duty to issue editorial guidance to the contrary.

“Your new editorial guidance is already having a clear impact on your reporting.”

A BBC spokesperson told Press Gazette: “We will respond [to Lord Adonis] in due course but we are confident that we have the right approach on our coverage.”

My letter to Lord Hall, BBC director-general, asking him to withdraw BBC’s editorial guidance that it is ‘no longer reporting on the binary choice’ for/against Brexit. Parliament hasn’t yet decided whether we are leaving EU next March & this remains massive issue of public debate pic.twitter.com/MgmznZH7Ht

— Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) April 9, 2018

Lord Adonis criticised the BBC’s decision “not to report” the anti-Brexit marches held in Leeds, Edinburgh and Pontypridd on 24 March.

BBC UK news editor Richard Burgess told Radio 4’s Feedback the following week that both pro and anti- views on Brexit have been covered “significantly” across BBC output and that the Leeds march was covered both on regional news programme Look North and online.

Adonis also called attention to the “constant high-profile coverage” given to former Ukip leader Nigel Farage, such as a recent stunt in which he joined fisheries policy protesters by throwing fish into the River Thames.

They were trying to draw attention to the delay in leaving the Common Fisheries Policy as part of the UK’s Brexit transition deal, which they said would have a detrimental effect on the British fishing industry.

Burgess previously defended what he called the BBC’s “marginal” coverage of the stunt, saying it did not feature on the Six or Ten O’Clock News.

Picture: Reuters/Simon Dawson

The Telegraph is the only news outlet to target a zero gender pay gap across the whole company, but Press Gazette understands there remains “growing anger” among staff over the size of the salary divide.

Telegraph Media Group had the second highest mean gender pay gap in the UK news media, according to Press Gazette’s rankings, at 35 per cent.

The group’s chief executive, Nick Hugh, has set 2025 as the year by which the company must achieve a zero pay gap, saying it “demonstrates where we see the future of The Telegraph”.

Some companies want to reach a zero gender pay gap sooner, but only within higher salary brackets, while others have said they are aiming for total gender parity without publicly setting a deadline.

The Telegraph’s pay gap pledge comes as…

• The Guardian targets a 50/50 gender balance in the top half of the organisation within five years
• The Financial Times aims to achieve gender parity across its global leadership by 2022
• Sky pledges to fill half of its most senior roles with women by 2020
• ITN aims to reduce its mean gender pay gap of 19.6 per cent by half over the next five years.

Press Gazette understands that at The Telegraph, two town hall-style meetings have already been held for staff to question senior editorial figures over issues that have arisen with publication of the gender pay gap.

The Telegraph pledged to regularly monitor its pay gap going forward, and has already successfully launched improved maternity benefits and coaching to support women before, during and after maternity leave.

It has also begun offering more opportunities for flexible working, while 50/50 gender shortlists were introduced last year for all roles.

However the FT’s NUJ chapel committee has offered its support to Telegraph journalists fighting for change, referencing a “growing anger” among staff at their rival publisher .

The FT itself had the sixth highest mean gender pay gap across the UK news media at 24.4 per cent.

A statement sent by the FT chapel committee to all staff last week, seen by Press Gazette, asked the paper’s journalists to fill out a confidential pay survey “in order to reassure ourselves and others that there is no problem with equal pay”.

Chapel representatives also said their gender pay gap figures, including a median gap of 19.4 per cent, were “worse than had been predicted”, saying they pointed to “an historic problem with gender pay at the FT and in general”.

They requested time with senior FT managers to discuss the possibility of increasing transparency on benchmarking pay, hiring and promotions.

They also gave a list of demands they wanted implemented immediately, including:

• Equalised shared parental leave between men and women;
• A review of the salaries of all women returning from maternity leave;
• An annual increase in trainee starting salaries in line with inflation;
• And “genuinely flexible and widely available work arrangements and measures to prevent daily workload impinging on domestic life”.

The chapel’s statement also claimed that, placed alongside company data provided in annual pay negotiations, the gender pay gap figures showed the editorial gap has actually been​ ​getting wider over the past six years.

They added: “While we welcome the stated commitment to diversity, fairness and good business practice that accompanied publication of the pay data by the FT, we would like to see this reinforced by specific deadlines and targets aiming to make the 19.4 per cent gap a thing of the past.

“Targeted pay rises and negotiated pay settlements that favour the lower paid can make a difference.”

In its gender pay gap report, the FT said it is developing and implementing plans to improve workplace diversity, including 50/50 shortlists for all hiring and internal recruitment.

John Ridding, the FT’s chief executive, said: “It is clear from the changing composition of our teams that we are moving in the right direction. It is equally clear from our gender pay gap results that we have more work to do.”

An FT women’s WhatsApp group featured much discussion recently, Press Gazette understands, of a Buzzfeed article revealing how female journalists at the likes of ITN are fighting behind the scenes for better pay.

Women at ITN and BBC have also reportedly set up WhatsApp groups to discuss gender pay concerns.

Press Gazette reported last week that ITN chief executive John Hardie will “not receive a penny” in bonus pay unless he hits new gender and diversity targets.

ITN, which encompasses the news teams at ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, reported the media’s highest mean bonus pay gap at 77.2 per cent.

Conde Nast reported the highest mean gender pay gap in UK media at 36.9 per cent but declined to provide further comment for this story beyond the brief statement released with its figures last week.

The statement, signed by Conde Nast Britain chief operating officer Sabine Vandenbroucke and HR director Hazel McIntyre, said: “We recognise that we need to work to reduce the gap in the upper quartile [of earners].

“Our high proportion of female employees means that we already offer many family-friendly policies and have a relatively large number of flexible workers.

“We are developing a number of new initiatives across recruitment, retention, career progression, and mentoring programmes to make progress in reducing our gender pay gap going forward.”

The statement claimed that across three-quarters of the UK business, there is “no evidence of an appreciable gender pay gap”, with the publisher attributing the gap to the senior leadership team, many of whom are “long standing” at the company.

This is despite Conde Nast’s employees being 74 per women across the business as of the snapshot reporting date of 5 April – with the top earners made up of 63 per cent women.

This means the company’s gender pay gap is skewed by the salaries of the men who make up 37 per cent of the top quarter of earners in the business.

The Economist Group, which has the highest median gender pay gap in UK media at 29.5 per cent and fourth highest mean gap at 32.5 per cent, also declined to comment beyond the statement in its report.

In it, chief executive Chris Stibbs said that although the group employs similar numbers of men and women “we need to provide more opportunities for women to progress”.

He said: “We are committed to achieving gender parity across the group and through annual measurement and reporting we will demonstrate improvement.”

The commitments listed in the report include addressing high turnover in lower paid roles with careful recruitment, considering multiple male and female candidates for senior roles and creating better male and female balance in management teams.

“Some teams have achieved this and others have a way to go,” it said.

The report also notes: “While the key challenge is of equal representation of women in senior roles and management teams, this will not be achieved by recruitment and career progression alone.

“We will also reexamine policies and practices, paternity and maternity support, management development, and deploy widely our diversity and inclusion training including understanding unconscious biases.”

A spokesperson for The Economist Group pointed out that Wilmington, publisher of Health Service Journal and Compliance Week, has a higher median gender pay gap of 36.6 per cent and mean pay gap of 49.6 per cent.

Wilmington has fewer than 250 employees in the UK and published its figures voluntarily. Press Gazette made the decision not to include the publisher in its round-up of pay gap figures because of its small size.

Picture: Pixabay