Why is Jonathan Ross paid an obscene amount of money for having really rather innocuous conversations on the telly?  It’s very simple.  He interviews film stars on the telly.  They aren’t the only interviewees, but without them, it’s no show.  This means that when his people ask film stars to be on his show, they have to say: yes.  If they say no, there’s no show.  Their only question is: is this guy a star?  If he’s a star, they’ll be on his show.  If he’s not a star, then they put their own stardom at risk by talking to him as if he’s human.  And the only way they have of determining whether he is a star is to ask: how much is he paid?  If it’s obscene, then he’s a star.  If it’s not obscene, then he’s not.  If he’s not a star, they won’t talk to him.  No, it’s more basic than that.  They can’t talk to him.

So, do we want somebody having innocuous conversations with film stars on our telly?  If we do, then what Jonathan Ross gets paid is what it costs.

Personally, I favour a free market in telly as in everything, and there’d be no BBC doing sums like this.  But that is a somewhat different debate, about the morals of who pays the price, rather than the question of what that price is.

By having Ross do his Friday chat show and also having him do Film Whatever year it is, the BBC contrives only to pay an obscene sum of money to one person rather than to two.  The film stars are needed for both, but the two needs are covered by just the one obscene payment.  Ross also does other movie shows, about Hollywood, Japanese movies, and the like.

Jonathan Ross is saving us all a fortune, by only being paid one.

I’ve just had a glass of wine, so this may not be true.