版僕WitchVera讀完後理解了: 嫦娥奔月的心歷過程, 放下所有並遠離凡塵的腥羶餿, 祖先們的故事把背景美化到足以流傳多年.
難怪有新進同仁提出的私校學歷上面的校長與該校歷任校長都不同姓名, 自傳寫名列前茅品學兼優 提出的在校大學成績單卻1/3低於60分, 英文則只會簽自己名子. 因為他是關說進公司的. (太話題了)
所以立刻貼文分享外, 敬請閱讀經濟學人的原文版(如下所附).
BBC內鬥亂象，該如何化解？
BBC內鬥亂象，該如何化解？
天下雜誌 - 5 天前
英國廣播公司（BBC）高層人員一直希望能找到吸引觀眾的戲劇節目。而在9月9日，7位傳播界大老出席下議院公共帳戶委員會聽證會，不僅製造了緊 ...
2013-09-18 Web only作者：經濟學人
英國廣播公司（BBC）高層人員一直希望能找到吸引觀眾的戲劇節目。而在9月9日，7位傳播界大老出席下議院公共帳戶委員會聽證會，不僅製造了緊繃和仇恨，更預示了未來可能出現的亂象；這一切經過已經足以製作成一系列精彩的戲碼了。
爭端起因於BBC資深高層的遣散費，這場風暴至今是愈演愈烈。BBC面臨了必須縮減高階管理人數的壓力，但是BBC解決高薪管理人數過多的方式，卻是付出大筆金錢，好讓他們走路。
BBC要在8年內支付近3.7億英鎊的遺散費和「甜頭」給離職員工，這些金額都超出了合約要求。薪資收入最高的員工獲得的利益也最大：2009～2012年間，150名離職的資深管理人員，總計獲得2,500萬英鎊。由於BBC的授權金於2010年遭到凍結，導致實質收入驟減，因此作出裁減高階管理人員的決定。但國家審計局認定，BBC違反了原本就十分慷慨的遣散費政策，並將責任歸疚於管理制度不佳。
由於BBC的資金來自每一戶擁有電視的家庭，這種虛擲大筆金錢的行為也激怒了政治人物和觀眾。為了調查事件發生的緣由，結果卻引發了湯普生（Mark Thompson）和彭定康（Chris Patten）兩人之間相互指責。兩人都和BBC頗有淵源，湯普生為BBC前總裁，彭定康則為BBC信託基金主席。
湯普生表示，曾將遣散費事宜告知彭定康及前任信託基金主席里昂（Michael Lyons），並取得他們的「全力支持」。兩人之間的爭執引來委員會主席霍吉（Margaret Hodge）的嘲諷，她認為BBC最高層無能、缺乏中央管理且無法相互溝通。
除了內鬥之外，還有更嚴重的問題要解決。BBC信託基金的體質相當脆弱，其龐大的管理架構似乎無法勝任財務監管的工作。現任BBC總裁霍爾（Tony Hall）承認，BBC處理遣散費的方式「荒腔走板」，他表示信託基金和執行管理董事會未來將會更緊密地合作。但是，大多數人認為這並不是解答。
部分首長支持的解決方案，是將監管BBC的任務交給通訊傳播管理局。通訊傳播管理局目前負責檢視BBC的內容是否符合品味和合宜標準，以及BBC是否有遵從獨立企業製作節目的配額限制。有些人認為，必須用同樣的方式去管制以廣告收入為主的另一個公共電視台「第四頻道」。
牛津大學的企理治理專家梅爾（Colin Mayer）指出，這樣的作法反而會讓政府任命的監管機構，對於獨立的媒體組織擁有過大影響力。過去10年，英國監管機構的名聲雖然有很大的改善，但是給予監管機構如此大的權力，仍舊充滿爭議。
梅爾認為，讓BBC採行企業的治理架構，並由慈善基金或信託負責監督，才是比較好的作法。採行更接近主流商業企業的架構，由總裁負責領導，訂定明確管理責任，並賦予非執行董事更重要的角色，或許可以扭轉BBC這種推卸責任的傾向。
前勞工部長喬威爾（Tessa Jowell）提出另一個作法，則是將BBC轉變為共同擁有企業，讓2,700萬名授權金支付者都有權表達意見。然而，懷疑者擔心，這可能會因此產生許多政治派系，彼此相互競爭以取得民眾捍衛者的角色地位。在此同時，霍爾則是滿懷希望地表示，遣散費爭議已成過去式。但目前看來，這場始於遺散費的爭議，已經演變成BBC該如此運作的爭議了。（黃維德譯）
http://english.cw.com.tw/article.do?action=show&id=14414
The Economist
Sep14th 2013 |From the print edition
Arow over pay-offs by the national broadcaster has produced an establishmentclash.
SHARP-SUITEDtelevision executives at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) covetdramas riveting enough to stop viewers switching over to their commercialrivals. On September 9th an appearance by seven of the broadcasting world's bigbeasts before the Commons Public Accounts Committee provided enough tension,vengeance and omens of further upheaval to fuel an entire series.
Severancepayments for senior BBC executives started the spat, but the implications runfar deeper for the national broadcaster. Faced with pressures to cull asprawling headcount of managers the BBC's solution to dealing with an excess ofhighly paid executives turned out to be to pay them an awful lot to go away.
Thecorporation spent nearly £370m ($585m) over eight years in staff redundanciesand "sweeteners", often beyond contractual requirements. Thehighest-paid fared best: 150 senior departing managers received £25m between2000 and 2012. Mark Byford, the former deputy director-general who left his jobin 2010, received over £1m as bosses sought to cut the management pay bill by aquarter. The cuts were triggered when the BBC's licence fee was frozen in 2010.That put a dent in its real-terms income forcing the push to save cash. But theNational Audit Office, which audits public-sector accounts, concluded that theBBC "breached its own already generous policies on severancepayments" and blamed weak governance arrangements.
Asthe BBC is financed by a compulsory levy on all television-owning households,politicians and viewers have been angered by the misspent money. The push todiscover how it happened has produced energetic blame-shifting between Mark Thompson,who was director-general until mid-2012, and Lord Patten, a Tory grandee whoheads the BBC's governing trust.
MrThompson says that he told Lord Patten and Sir Michael Lyons, his predecessorat the trust, about the pay-offs and had their "full support".Further squabbling about who knew what led Margaret Hodge, the fiery Labourchair of the committee, to deride the "incompetence, lack of centralcontrol, [and] failure to communicate" of the BBC's top brass. Underquestioning, Lucy Adams, its head of human resources, appeared unable toremember the content of many of her own memos.
Studentsof the changing nature of Britain's establishment have relished the meltdown ofcourtesies as the grandees exchanged poisonous glances and frosty put-downs. MrThompson, a self-confident sort, belongs to a globe-trotting circle of mediaCEOs and is currently chief executive of the New York Times. Lord Patten, whoplayed a key role in the defenestration of Margaret Thatcher as prime minister,represents a more traditional brand of big-wiggery. He is also chancellor ofOxford University and organised the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997.
Beyondthe personal infighting, bigger questions loom. The BBC Trust now looksespecially vulnerable. Its unwieldy governance structure, drawn up in 2006 inresponse to a clash with the then Labour government over coverage of the run-upto the war in Iraq, looks unequal to the task of financial oversight.
TheBBC's present director-general, Tony Hall, admits that the BBC "lost the plot"on the payments. He has announced that the trust and his executive managementboard will work more closely together. Few think that is an adequate answer.Alternatives to the trust are likely to be put forward ahead of the renewal, in2016 of the Royal Charter which outlines the BBC's constitutional status andfunding.
Oneoption supported by some ministers in the Tory-led coalition is to hand theBBC's regulation to Ofcom, the regulator which already checks the BBC's tasteand decency standards and that it is adhering to quotas for programmes suppliedby independent companies. Ofcom's remit, some think, could easily be extended,in the same way that it regulates the advertising-financed, publicly-ownedChannel 4.
Thatshift, says Colin Mayer, a corporate-governance expert at Oxford University,would risk granting a government-appointed regulator too much sway over whatshould be an independent media organisation. Although the reputation ofBritain's regulators in sectors such as the utilities has improved in the pastdecade, granting full regulatory power over the broadcaster to an external bodyremains controversial.
Abetter idea, Mr Mayer suggests, would be for the BBC to adopt the governancestructure of companies ranging from IKEA and Bertelsmann to Tata and Bosch,under which a charitable foundation or trust checks that the activities of thecompany are in keeping with agreed values. Adopting a corporate structure morelike mainstream commercial companies, with an executive chairman, responsible forleadership, clear management responsibilities and a stronger role fornon-executive directors, might at least cure the BBC's tendency to pass thebuck when trouble strikes.
Analternative idea, floated by Tessa Jowell, a former Labour minister, is to makethe BBC into a mutually owned company, with 27m licence-fee payers afforded amore robust say over what it does. Sceptics worry that this would end upcreating thinly veiled political tribes, competing to act as tribunes of thepublic. Lord Hall meanwhile, claims hopefully that the row over pay-offs nowbelongs "to the past". But an argument that started over how muchpeople should be paid to leave the BBC looks like turning into an even biggerone about how to run it.
©TheEconomist Newspaper Limited 2013
文章定位：
