No one bothering with your posts on Points of View?
Well seeing as I have only just posted there for the first time in a while there's hardly been anything for people to bother with. So that's another "fail" for you.
If you want to talk about the NHS start a thread on the appropriate board. No good bangin' on about them on here in an attempt to divert criticism of the BBC profligacy with the licence payer's cash.
If the subject is "public-funded organisation that wastes public money" then I would say that the NHS is a very relevant topic to mention. If only to demonstrate the point that the BBC 'wastes" an awful lot less.
There's no guesswork about the statement I linked
In the post I replied to there was no link to anything.
If you want to talk waste.
here's an example of just one example of the BBC's
I know you don't like criticisms of the BBC and rush to their defence on here, but you rarely succeed.
No-one's denying that that money is now "wasted" but the idea was good; only the execution was poor.
However, it is universally accepted that any company will "waste" a certain amount of money from time to time on projects that don't work out. It just happens.
Well seeing as I have only just posted there for the first time in a while there's hardly been anything for people to bother with. So that's another "fail" for you.
If the subject is "public-funded organisation that wastes public money" then I would say that the NHS is a very relevant topic to mention. If only to demonstrate the point that the BBC 'wastes" an awful lot less.
In the post I replied to there was no link to anything.
No-one's denying that that money is now "wasted" but the idea was good; only the execution was poor.
However, it is universally accepted that any company will "waste" a certain amount of money from time to time on projects that don't work out. It just happens.
Hmm..
The BBC wastes a lot less than the NHS?
What sort of level of increase in waste do you think they should strive for before you consider it a problem?
Any waste is a problem but to expect any company to never "waste" any money is just naive in the extreme.
And I put "waste" in quote marks because this money that they spent only became a waste when the project was scrapped. If it had not been the money would not have been "wasted".
Whilst you may have the gift of foresight and so never "waste" even a penny, the rest of us are mere mortals and know that these things happen from time to time.
Any waste is a problem but to expect any company to never "waste" any money is just naive in the extreme.
And I put "waste" in quote marks because this money that they spent only became a waste when the project was scrapped. If it had not been the money would not have been "wasted".
Whilst you may have the gift of foresight and so never "waste" even a penny, the rest of us are mere mortals and know that these things happen from time to time.
I'm finding this exchange a complete "waste" of time.
Totally. We'll have nothing but Liz on all channels for a week at least.
It'll be a nightmare. I bet even the shopping channels will be flogging royal memorabilia and whatever I for one will be watching DVDs and browsing the 'net when that happens. Plenty of stuff on Youtube to keep me entertained.
The death of our monarch is probably the only time mainstream channels should be covering the death constantly from the moment it's announced to many hours beyond..
No it isn't. If they want to keep on hearing about the death of a parasite they can watch it on 1 of the News Channels.
Totally. We'll have nothing but Liz on all channels for a week at least.
I suspect coverage will be pretty heavy when Phil goes too...
The Queen I can cope with, Mandela...no. I bet you Bono wont be sitting front and centre in the abbey with world leaders sporting his green goggles in due course either.
The poster was calling you on something you had just made up - hence the irony.;-)
Yep! You're back!
If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know that I told them in no uncertain terms that I hadn't.
Still not like you to let facts get in the way of another bit of pointless nit-picking.
How about adding something interesting and on the topic?
If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know that I told them in no uncertain terms that I hadn't.
Still not like you to let facts get in the way of another bit of pointless nit-picking.
How about adding something interesting and on the topic?
No I thought not, you don't do that.
Oh! The irony!
I believe you stated that the BBC newsroom was overmanned, which you actually have no knowledge of, so you made it up.
Then you told another poster to "stop making things up"....:D
[QUOTE=mikw;70243745]I believe you stated that the BBC newsroom was overmanned, which you actually have no knowledge of, so you made it up.
Then you told another poster to "stop making things up"....:D[/QUOTE]
Yes that's an opinion.
You certainly wouldn't have liked that one. (No job opportunities in that situation).
It's something with which you refuse to live.
Just look at the numbers employed. Don't tell me there couldn't be savings made, with a bit of multi-tasking and reductions in levels of management strata. Such economies are made in this day and age in well-run businesses.
The internet has made news gathering more streamlined and less labour intensive. Well.. at least it should have.
You of course, probably think that all their functions are essential and you and the BBC believe that none could possibly be done without.
We're one of the smallest and progressively less influential countries in the world, yet the BBC boast of having the largest news-gathering service in the world.
"What's wrong with this picture?"
You may have an opinion, but that's all it is.
This is going nowhere and you know it..
You really have a problem with my opinions, don't you?
Maybe the news channel could simulcast broadcasts with BBC1, BBC2 and BBC Parliament. That could save money.
There's lots of ways they could save money.
The problem with multi-levels of management, is not just the cost of the individual management job. Lots of comment or guesses of "non titles and pay levels" of these people in the press, but it's the on-cost too.
Each will require office space and a "team," so the costs rise exponentially as soon as they were created.
Then you've the rivalry between channels, each with an individual controller, who see each of the others as competition. So there's got to be some duplication of facilities and information gathering for some programmes there.
The BBC do a good job any many respects, but the attitude to the licence payer's cash isn't always seemingly a prime consideration. Hence Lord Hall saying effectively they've got to be more careful. But why only now?
A classic example is duplication of weather reports. How often is the main weather forecast followed by a regional one?
I could get my regional weather via the "red button" for what it's worth, in the Manchester area.
So why the necessity for regional weather presenters?
But as we're so often told, "It's only 40p a day," so why complain?
More money needs to go into programme making, they are the reasons most people watch TV.
The problem with multi-levels of management, is not just the cost of the individual management job. Lots of comment or guesses of "non titles and pay levels" of these people in the press, but it's the on-cost too.
Each will require office space and a "team," so the costs rise exponentially as soon as they were created.
Then you've the rivalry between channels, each with an individual controller, who see each of the others as competition. So there's got to be some duplication of facilities and information gathering for some programmes there.
The BBC do a good job any many respects, but the attitude to the licence payer's cash isn't always seemingly a prime consideration. Hence Lord Hall saying effectively they've got to be more careful. But why only now?
A classic example is duplication of weather reports. How often is the main weather forecast followed by a regional one?
I could get my regional weather via the "red button" for what it's worth, in the Manchester area.
So why the necessity for regional weather presenters?
But as we're so often told, "It's only 40p a day," so why complain?
More money needs to go into programme making, they are the reasons most people watch TV.
I agree that management is overstaffed, but you could say that about most companies.
However, you've got to be very careful and not just swing the hatchet, otherwise it can go hopelessly wrong.
To be honest there's no need for news or weather presenters, just get it off the internet. However, News and weather are part of the BBC's charter and exactly what they should be doing.
I agree that management is overstaffed, but you could say that about most companies.
However, you've got to be very careful and not just swing the hatchet, otherwise it can go hopelessly wrong.
To be honest there's no need for news or weather presenters, just get it off the internet. However, News and weather are part of the BBC's charter and exactly what they should be doing.
Let's not go down the "feast or famine road" again.
No one mentioned "hatchets" did they?
However, for Richard Sambrook to seemingly boast about the BBC employing 2000 journalists.....
It's a question of economies of scale. There will be ways of saving money, it's pointless raising the "charter" as an excuse for doing nothing.
I don't like butting in within an always pointless online argument but did either of you two realise that Nelson Mandela is dead! I just found out on the BBC...
I don't like butting in within an always pointless online argument but did either of you two realise that Nelson Mandela is dead! I just found out on the BBC...
Well, they can't drop news and weather, therefore they need news and weather presenters - no "feast or "famine" there, just fact.
So, how "overmanned" is it then? How would you swing the Doghouse Hatchet? How many could be trimmed?
Or is the newsroom actually not overstaffed after all?
How do you know?
How do you know it's not?
Who said "drop news and weather?"
I didn't.
Who said "economies of scale?"
I did.
In excess of 2000 journalists on the payroll as stated by the BBC, might give you a clue.
You need to understand how businesses are run. Line managers can try to kid their superiors that everyone in their department is essential. Unless you know exactly what everyone is doing, then to make economies is very difficult.
"Quick! The boss is coming, look busy!"
"Work expands to fill the time available."
They need independent management consultants to go in and examine every aspect of the business, to see where and if, economies can be made.
I've a friend who does exactly that. If they're in a department for a whole week, it's hard graft, but it's impossible to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
They've saved big companies huge sums of money, by restructuring the way things are done, much of it because of duplication of effort, or services.
"We've always done it this way."
is a common excuse for wasted effort.
Comments
If the subject is "public-funded organisation that wastes public money" then I would say that the NHS is a very relevant topic to mention. If only to demonstrate the point that the BBC 'wastes" an awful lot less.
In the post I replied to there was no link to anything.
No-one's denying that that money is now "wasted" but the idea was good; only the execution was poor.
However, it is universally accepted that any company will "waste" a certain amount of money from time to time on projects that don't work out. It just happens.
Hmm..
The BBC wastes a lot less than the NHS?
What sort of level of increase in waste do you think they should strive for before you consider it a problem?
You are funny.
And I put "waste" in quote marks because this money that they spent only became a waste when the project was scrapped. If it had not been the money would not have been "wasted".
Whilst you may have the gift of foresight and so never "waste" even a penny, the rest of us are mere mortals and know that these things happen from time to time.
I'm finding this exchange a complete "waste" of time.
It'll be a nightmare. I bet even the shopping channels will be flogging royal memorabilia and whatever
She clearly isn't.
She does seem rather overrated.
I suspect coverage will be pretty heavy when Phil goes too...
The Queen I can cope with, Mandela...no. I bet you Bono wont be sitting front and centre in the abbey with world leaders sporting his green goggles in due course either.
Surely there's more important stuff at home going on?
A slight lack of self awareness there....:D
I'm pretty much "aware" of your long term obsession with my views, when I've never shown the slightest interest in yours.
You on the other hand are in complete denial, recognise the irony?
Any opinion of mine you don't share, is usually followed by that same repeated unsubstantiated nonsense.
So it's a waste of time bothering to respond.
No doubt having had the first word, you'll want the last.
The poster was calling you on something you had just made up - hence the irony.;-)
Yep! You're back!
If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know that I told them in no uncertain terms that I hadn't.
Still not like you to let facts get in the way of another bit of pointless nit-picking.
How about adding something interesting and on the topic?
No I thought not, you don't do that.
Oh! The irony!
I believe you stated that the BBC newsroom was overmanned, which you actually have no knowledge of, so you made it up.
Then you told another poster to "stop making things up"....:D
Then you told another poster to "stop making things up"....:D[/QUOTE]
Yes that's an opinion.
You certainly wouldn't have liked that one. (No job opportunities in that situation).
It's something with which you refuse to live.
Just look at the numbers employed. Don't tell me there couldn't be savings made, with a bit of multi-tasking and reductions in levels of management strata. Such economies are made in this day and age in well-run businesses.
The internet has made news gathering more streamlined and less labour intensive. Well.. at least it should have.
You of course, probably think that all their functions are essential and you and the BBC believe that none could possibly be done without.
We're one of the smallest and progressively less influential countries in the world, yet the BBC boast of having the largest news-gathering service in the world.
"What's wrong with this picture?"
You may have an opinion, but that's all it is.
This is going nowhere and you know it..
You really have a problem with my opinions, don't you?
Bless!
Still no comment on the actual topic I see.
There's lots of ways they could save money.
The problem with multi-levels of management, is not just the cost of the individual management job. Lots of comment or guesses of "non titles and pay levels" of these people in the press, but it's the on-cost too.
Each will require office space and a "team," so the costs rise exponentially as soon as they were created.
Then you've the rivalry between channels, each with an individual controller, who see each of the others as competition. So there's got to be some duplication of facilities and information gathering for some programmes there.
The BBC do a good job any many respects, but the attitude to the licence payer's cash isn't always seemingly a prime consideration. Hence Lord Hall saying effectively they've got to be more careful. But why only now?
A classic example is duplication of weather reports. How often is the main weather forecast followed by a regional one?
I could get my regional weather via the "red button" for what it's worth, in the Manchester area.
So why the necessity for regional weather presenters?
But as we're so often told, "It's only 40p a day," so why complain?
More money needs to go into programme making, they are the reasons most people watch TV.
I agree that management is overstaffed, but you could say that about most companies.
However, you've got to be very careful and not just swing the hatchet, otherwise it can go hopelessly wrong.
To be honest there's no need for news or weather presenters, just get it off the internet. However, News and weather are part of the BBC's charter and exactly what they should be doing.
Let's not go down the "feast or famine road" again.
No one mentioned "hatchets" did they?
However, for Richard Sambrook to seemingly boast about the BBC employing 2000 journalists.....
It's a question of economies of scale. There will be ways of saving money, it's pointless raising the "charter" as an excuse for doing nothing.
No!
Really?
Thanks for the information.
"Strange, no one started a thread about it."
Well, they can't drop news and weather, therefore they need news and weather presenters - no "feast or "famine" there, just fact.
So, how "overmanned" is it then? How would you swing the Doghouse Hatchet? How many could be trimmed?
Or is the newsroom actually not overstaffed after all?
How do you know?
How do you know it's not?
Who said "drop news and weather?"
I didn't.
Who said "economies of scale?"
I did.
In excess of 2000 journalists on the payroll as stated by the BBC, might give you a clue.
You need to understand how businesses are run. Line managers can try to kid their superiors that everyone in their department is essential. Unless you know exactly what everyone is doing, then to make economies is very difficult.
"Quick! The boss is coming, look busy!"
"Work expands to fill the time available."
They need independent management consultants to go in and examine every aspect of the business, to see where and if, economies can be made.
I've a friend who does exactly that. If they're in a department for a whole week, it's hard graft, but it's impossible to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
They've saved big companies huge sums of money, by restructuring the way things are done, much of it because of duplication of effort, or services.
"We've always done it this way."
is a common excuse for wasted effort.