Questions, questions

Is Jonathan Ross worth 1,000 BBC journalists?

You give a guy £6m a year and this is how he repays you? The BBC director general, Mark Thompson, has consistently defended his decision to hand Jonathan Ross a widely reputed £18m three-year contract on the basis that it was in the best interests of viewers.

But even he must have been wondering after Ross jokingly described himself as worth "1,000 BBC journalists" at a time when disgruntled staff are voting on striking over plans to axe 1,800 jobs.

Presenting the British Comedy awards on Wednesday, the radio DJ and chatshow host, below, had got himself into hot water with quips about Madeleine McCann and Chris Langham. But it was his gag at the expense of his BBC colleagues that caused a longer than usual pregnant pause and a sharp intake of breath on Radio 4's Today programme the following day.

The NUJ soon pitched in with customary righteous indignation. "Whilst it may be a joke to him, the reality is not a laughing matter to those who have the axe hanging over their heads," said its general secretary, Jeremy Dear.

All of which overlooks the fact that, mathematically, Ross is worth nowhere near 1,000 BBC journalists. If you take the average basic salary of a broadcast journalist in London as a benchmark, he's worth around 200. In the regions, meanwhile, he's probably worth 400.

And that's only if you believe he earns £6m a year. BBC sources insist it is actually a bit less. But not much.

However, Ross may soon get some support from an unlikely source. An external survey into talent costs ordered by Sir Michael Lyons, the BBC chairman, could have a surprising outcome. According to insiders, the presenter could emerge as good value for money because aside from paying his mammoth salary, his programmes don't cost a whole lot more to make.

While Ross found it easy to brush off David Cameron after asking if he had ever fantasised over Margaret Thatcher, he might find John Humphrys and Jeremy Paxman an altogether more formidable proposition.
Owen Gibson

Which poems should children read?

An Ofsted report on poetry in British schools laments the narrow range and the predominance of "lightweight" verse. Every primary-school pupil seems to "do" Lewis Carroll's The Jabberwocky and Spike Milligan's On the Ning, Nang, Nong. The "classics" are neglected.

Most of the poems cited as popular with teachers are good, of their type. The predictability is what depresses. Nothing wrong with Lewis Carroll, but John Gay and Jonathan Swift wrote great rhyming nonsense too. Blake's The Tyger is wonderful but there are other Songs of Innocence and Experience, such as Ah! Sunflower or (for slightly older ones) A Poison Tree. Children are apparently still being given WH Auden's Funeral Blues (because of that film), but Auden wrote many more poems that combine rhythmic hook with poetic subtlety: "O What Is That Sound" (which so thrills the ear) or (doubling as Key Stage 2 History) Roman Wall Blues.

It is cheering to know that teachers are still performing Walter de la Mare's The Listeners, and if they are not reading out Byron's The Destruction of Sennacherib, they should be. But why not other examples of narrative verse? There are great traditional ballads as well as more literary ones, such as William Cowper's John Gilpin, Keats's La Belle Dame sans Merci or Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.

A special kind of poetry combines simplicity with strangeness. Christina Rossetti called her nursery rhymes Sing-Song, but her childish lyrics are often mysterious too. Wordsworth was the first great poet to celebrate simplicity and wrote lyrics that are both easy and profound. Both wrote for the memory and children need verse to learn by heart. Some of the traditional verses - Robert Louis Stevenson's Windy Nights or John Masefield's Cargoes - have tunes that teach the habit of remembering poetry.
John Mullan

Why is air rage on the rise?

In a nutshell, it is because more people are flying and more travellers are flying stressed, not to mention drunk and deprived of cigarettes.

Experts agree with the Department for Transport that part of the reason for a 60% increase in UK air rage incidents in the past year is down to more cases being reported. But the increase also coincides with the security measures imposed after police swooped last year on a number of people allegedly plotting to bomb transatlantic planes.

"The whole travel experience is no longer an enjoyable one," said Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International and MD of Green Light, which provides aviation security training.

"The tension people are put under at the airport by the security measures and the way they treat people by, say, confiscating bottles of water and making them buy new bottles after passing through security, is victimisation of everyone."

More common sense in choosing whom to search is desperately needed, Baum believes. "It is an absolute nonsense that we are asking so many people to take off their shoes and belts and so on. When you subject travellers to such stress, it is hardly surprising that some overreact. Mix that with alcohol and smokers often being told they cannot light up and it is a powder keg."

Air rage has been further fuelled by a "new breed of passenger taking to the sky" with the rise of low-cost flights, Baum added. This week's DfT report said alcohol was the biggest factor, involved in 746 of the 2,219 air rage incidents in 2006-07. That is up from 271 in 2002-03. Another 563 incidents involved smoking, up from 260 four years ago.

Travellers should be aware that tiredness is a major constituent of stress and rash, irrational actions, suggests. So get plenty of sleep the night before; phone ahead to let others know if you have been delayed; read a book or magazine; and, if you do drink on board, be aware that alcohol at altitude has twice the effect as at ground level.

"In short, deal with the problem rather than allowing the problem deal with you," it says.
James Sturcke