Male journalists love gender-based pay cut

What is it that makes liberal journalists happy? Sexually harassing their coworkers? Creating fake news stories about Donald Trump? Pushing the liberal agenda day after day?

Well, it turns out that what makes male journalists the happiest is a pay cut, at least at the BBC.

The BBC said on Friday that it was reducing the salaries of several of its most prominent male journalists following Carrie Gracie’s decision this month to leave her position as the British broadcaster’s China editor to protest unequal pay between men and women at the organization.

Among those receiving pay cuts are the presenters Jeremy Vine, Huw Edwards and John Humphrys. 

Mr. Vine described his decision to take a wage cut as a “no-brainer.”

He has no brain, heh heh. No wonder he wants his own pay cut.

According to the BBC’s annual report, Mr. Vine earned up to 750,000 pounds, or $1.1 million, last year.

I hope they reduced his salary so much that he's paid in ounces.


Humphrys, who received between £600,000 and £649,999 last year for presenting BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and Mastermind, said it was his decision to take a pay cut.

He decided he wanted his pay cut, heh heh. He should have spoken out much sooner.

Campbell, BBC 5 Live’s Breakfast host, who earned between £400,000 and £449,999 last year, confirmed on air that he was taking a reduction. “It’s all very civilised and collegiate,” he said.

His pay cut was civilized. They all sound so happy about it.

I'm sure there are some male employees at the BBC who make more money than women employees who do the same job. But that does not mean there is discrimination. Seldom is the question asked, do they do the same job equally well? Are all employees in the same job equally valued? Do they all work equally long hours?

I find it hard to believe in this day and age that wage discrimination against women is widespread. Let's say that employer A paid women $10,000 a year less than they were worth. Then employers B, C, D, and others would have no trouble stealing away these qualified women at higher wages. Employer A wouldn't be able to hold onto employees who it didn't compensate based on their worth.

Take Katie Couric or Megyn Kelly as an example. Can you imagine either of them accepting a salary far below their peers of say, $50,000 or $75,000 a year? Absolutely not. That's because they are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have greater value to viewer audiences and can easily get higher paying jobs elsewhere. It's impossible to underpay them because of competition for qualified employees.

By the way, Katie and Megyn make far more than most male television broadcasters. But no one calls for Katie and Megyn to take a pay cut.

In a world with multiple employers and a merit based free market system, some discrimination will always exist. But by and large, claims of sex discrimination are simply a game, to extort more money from employers. If employees are so talented, why don't they get higher paying jobs somewhere else?

It's comical to see that the BBC's solution to this PC conundrum is to lower the salaries of the men. I like it and think that the men should have even lower salaries than the women, as a form of reparation for past injustices.


Ed Straker is the senior writer at Thomas, if you're reading this, I'd like a paycut.


If you experience technical problems, please write to