IRadio 1 - Fearne Cotton, Huw Stephens, Pete Tong, Annie Mac, MistaJam, Charlie Sloth, ToddlaT, DJ Target, Robbo Ranx and Seani B.
Radio 1 xtra - Charlie Sloth and Mistajam and DJ Target
Are those adult human beings or the new Teletubbies?
Of course, the same could be said of every other programme they produce and everything else they do. Shouldn't stop them doing it, though.///
It should stop them going overboard with it.
As a "musical experience" it's crap.
Same old BBC, doing some stuff to excess, whilst providing lots of repeats, cheap schedule fillers for the majority of their audience and in this case, trying to "appeal hip to a younger audience."
It's quite pathetic really.
How many hours cover does Glastonbury get across BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4 and BBC Radio? And how many presenters would the BBC normally have across that many hours television and radio?
I have no problem with the number of people the BBC send, there's not too many similar events in their calendar.
It does make me smile though, they appear desperate to re-create some of the magic that used to exist in the legendary music festivals of long ago. Sadly, it's just not there anymore. It's often a case of "the King's new clothes", a massive build-up and you're left thinking "was that it ?" I guess it might be different if you're actually there, topped up with liberal supplies of alcohol and other substances.
Didn't the BBC famously have the most staff of any news organisation, including American news channels, at Obama's inauguration. ...
I seem to remember reading that at the time but it sounded like the usual manipulation of figures by the Daily Mail. The American TV networks will already have hundreds of people around Washington so it would not be surprising if the BBC sent more people to Washington for the inauguration.
I don't really care how many presenters BBC send it's the incessant dross they talk and how they all try to be hip and "down with the kids" that get's on my nerves.
I tune in to watch the acts not some made for radio faced numpties talking ***p
Actually on second thoughts a good idea would be to not send anybody but the camera crews and just do 30 second voice only links from a studio back at the BBC
I seem to remember reading that at the time but it sounded like the usual manipulation of figures by the Daily Mail. The American TV networks will already have hundreds of people around Washington so it would not be surprising if the BBC sent more people to Washington for the inauguration.
That may well be so but isn't it funny that the BBC sends so many people to cover an event that virtually no one in the UK has any interest in at all?
So basically your saying, only send " one person" for each service, one for Radio 1 one for a Radio 2. They broadcast from lunchtime to midnight and from Fridsy through Sunday, as well as breaking the EU rules on working time directive, you will have exhausted presenters and we will be fed up of one face all the time.
This is the thing that gets me people express an opinion and do not think it through, I would just cut it to 14! Some number picked out of the air.
1. Obviously you can't read as there is clearly 3 names listed for both radio 1 and 1 xtra and there is actually 10 going altogether for both stations so I have only cut 4 people from radio 1 & 1 xtra. So there is more than one person for these stations.
Radio 2 yes I have cut 1 person and there is 2 presenters which is more than 1.
2. The presenters would work on a rota so they wouldn't be on air all day.
3. In your post you said radio so you would not get fed up of the one face it would be the one voice.
4. Also you mustn't be able to count as 14 wasn't picked out of the air if you count up all the names you will find there is fourteen (14).
5. Can I also point out that I love the BBC and personally I would happily pay more for my TV licence as they provide the best service in the world but we all know that if any other broadcaster covered Glastonbury they wouldn't send as many staff as the BBC. But I don't think anyone else would cover it as well as the BBC. Long may Glastonbury live on the BBC.
That may well be so but isn't it funny that the BBC sends so many people to cover an event that virtually no one in the UK has any interest in at all?
Of course. But you have to take into account what the BBC thinks of itself.
They seem to have the opinion that they are a broadcaster of record. What that means is that they have some sort of (self-appointed) obligation to provide first hand coverage of whatever global events they consider either of historical interest, important or "worthy".
Further, that their presence and coverage confers status on those events. "If we cover it, it's significant" they might say.
Now, you might assume that this is either almighty hubris on their part, or the wielding of "soft power" on behalf of the UK government (although it's all paid for by us licence payers). Whichever, since they have the budget, that's what theu choose to do with it.
I don't really care how many presenters BBC send it's the incessant dross they talk and how they all try to be hip and "down with the kids" that get's on my nerves.
I tune in to watch the acts not some made for radio faced numpties talking ***p
Actually on second thoughts a good idea would be to not send anybody but the camera crews and just do 30 second voice only links from a studio back at the BBC
That sounds like obvious common sense, something which I've suggested for years, but you do realise a policy of that and using the local broadcaster's TV coverage of world wide sports events and to have the pundits in Salford, would do so many highly paid BBC "suits" out of a job?
I don't know why the BBC seem to think that if we're going to watch any sort of event for a few hours, we would want to hear constant "rabbit" from so called "celebrity commentators or pundits."
That may well be so but isn't it funny that the BBC sends so many people to cover an event that virtually no one in the UK has any interest in at all?
Usual Digital Spy principle presumably, 'I am not interested so no one else is interested'?
There are all the radio networks and World Service with some foreign language services. Various news programme from WATO, PM, Newsnight etc were done from Washington as well as BBC News running all day. ITN with just a few news bulletins a day still sent 20. Even the Grauniad were nearly in double figures (possibly in double figures) over in Washington for a handful of readers.
Usual Digital Spy principle presumably, 'I am not interested so no one else is interested'?
There are all the radio networks and World Service with some foreign language services. Various news programme from WATO, PM, Newsnight etc were done from Washington as well as BBC News running all day. ITN with just a few news bulletins a day still sent 20. Even the Grauniad were nearly in double figures (possibly in double figures) over in Washington for a handful of readers.
Seriously I have yet to meet anyone who is remotely interested in the details of American politics. It was a jolly pure and simple.
The recent events in Iraq involving Isis are far more relevant to life in the UK but you won't see BBC staff queuing up to go and cover them.
I have just put a reply on the thread on "Broadcasting" on here. I am very miffed that no coverage at all was from the Isle of Wight Festival, apart from the hour which Sky Arts showed a week after the event!
I suspect most people are bored with Iraq and Syria and would prefer to watch the inauguration of POTUS to yet another report from these places.
I agree a large proportion of the population will be fed up reports about the conflict in Iraq and Syria but I doubt any of them are so fed up they would willing watch Obama's inauguration ceremony.
There is a case to be made that this is an important event which should be reported but that wouldn't take more than a handful of staff. It was a jolly pure and simple.
I suspect most people are bored with Iraq and Syria and would prefer to watch the inauguration of POTUS to yet another report from these places.
I think most people would far prefer the LF money to be spent on reporting LOCAL events from within the UK (and outside London) than to either send a "talking head" + film crew into a war zone in the hope of them winning an award, or covering the election of an individual¹ that (almost) no-one watching in the UK had voted for, understands or is affected by their policies or could tell a donkey from an elephant. .
Let's face it. Most "foreign news" can neatly be summarised as "here's a list of bad things that have happened in far away places". We don't need pictures of yet more regugees, starving / flooded / earthquaked (is that a word?) / homeless people - unless that's what viewers watch the news for: to get their kicks
[1] BTW, as Obama has shown, the myth that POTUS is "the world's most powerful leader" is completely bogus. Possibly the world's most expensive lame duck and due to the way that american political institutions are set up, little more than a figurehead, these days.
As they say, "each to their own," but just flicking across channels because the availability of decent programmes on Saturday nights are so dire, I've caught bits of this, but I'm wondering why anyone would want to make the effort to get there, pay 'whatever' for the tickets, just to hear some of the crap musicianship and singing on display at Glastonbury. You'd be better off trawling through YouTube videos.
But then I guess for many, it's less about the "music" and more about being there and getting pissed up with your mates and the ability to go into work next week saying; "I've been to Glastonbury and it was fantastic."
Perhaps they do so because it is the music they like?
Yep it's definitely more about the overall experience rather than quality music. It's probably better when well known people are performing rather than the introducing stage stuff.
However the "well known people" were unknown once.
I've been to many festivals and lost count of the number of bands I've never heard of who I have seen and thoroughly enjoyed. That is what makes going to a festival such fun, it isn't always about the headliners.
I have just put a reply on the thread on "Broadcasting" on here. I am very miffed that no coverage at all was from the Isle of Wight Festival, apart from the hour which Sky Arts showed a week after the event!
Nothing was shown on BBC South either.
Since Sky show IoW, they presumably have exclusive rights to the event meaning no one else can.
I think most people would far prefer the LF money to be spent on reporting LOCAL events from within the UK (and outside London) than to either send a "talking head" + film crew into a war zone in the hope of them winning an award, or covering the election of an individual¹ that (almost) no-one watching in the UK had voted for, understands or is affected by their policies or could tell a donkey from an elephant. .
Let's face it. Most "foreign news" can neatly be summarised as "here's a list of bad things that have happened in far away places". We don't need pictures of yet more regugees, starving / flooded / earthquaked (is that a word?) / homeless people - unless that's what viewers watch the news for: to get their kicks
Why do people always assume "most people" agree with them?
You may only want to have local UK news reported but I for one want world news too. The BBC is a major global news organisation and turning it into a parochial information service to save a few quid on your licence fee would be a significant loss to British culture and international prestige.
[1] BTW, as Obama has shown, the myth that POTUS is "the world's most powerful leader" is completely bogus. Possibly the world's most expensive lame duck and due to the way that american political institutions are set up, little more than a figurehead, these days.
Nonsense. Whatever you think of Obama, the foreign policy decisions of the US president directly affect us here. So there is definite interest in who the US president is and what their policies are.
As they say, "each to their own," but just flicking across channels because the availability of decent programmes on Saturday nights are so dire, I've caught bits of this, but I'm wondering why anyone would want to make the effort to get there, pay 'whatever' for the tickets, just to hear some of the crap musicianship and singing on display at Glastonbury. You'd be better off trawling through YouTube videos.
But then I guess for many, it's less about the "music" and more about being there and getting pissed up with your mates and the ability to go into work next week saying; "I've been to Glastonbury and it was fantastic."
Using your logic why would anyone pay to see a live concert when they can watch something like it on youtube? Live music is never as perfect as a studio recording but that doesn't take account of the atmosphere of seeing and hearing it performed live.
The fact is thousands of people do pay hundreds of pounds for Glastonbury tickets to see several days of live music and other entertainment. Many times more people want to buy those tickets but can't, either because they've sold out so quickly or because they can't afford it. BBC coverage of this huge music event fills that demand. As a proportion of annual BBC costs it's a drop in the ocean. Not all BBC output can be to your demanding taste. Things that aren't are not a waste.
Comments
It should stop them going overboard with it.
As a "musical experience" it's crap.
Same old BBC, doing some stuff to excess, whilst providing lots of repeats, cheap schedule fillers for the majority of their audience and in this case, trying to "appeal hip to a younger audience."
It's quite pathetic really.
They get £4.3billion a year to spend and they make sure they bloody well enjoy it
It does make me smile though, they appear desperate to re-create some of the magic that used to exist in the legendary music festivals of long ago. Sadly, it's just not there anymore. It's often a case of "the King's new clothes", a massive build-up and you're left thinking "was that it ?" I guess it might be different if you're actually there, topped up with liberal supplies of alcohol and other substances.
I seem to remember reading that at the time but it sounded like the usual manipulation of figures by the Daily Mail. The American TV networks will already have hundreds of people around Washington so it would not be surprising if the BBC sent more people to Washington for the inauguration.
I tune in to watch the acts not some made for radio faced numpties talking ***p
Actually on second thoughts a good idea would be to not send anybody but the camera crews and just do 30 second voice only links from a studio back at the BBC
That may well be so but isn't it funny that the BBC sends so many people to cover an event that virtually no one in the UK has any interest in at all?
1. Obviously you can't read as there is clearly 3 names listed for both radio 1 and 1 xtra and there is actually 10 going altogether for both stations so I have only cut 4 people from radio 1 & 1 xtra. So there is more than one person for these stations.
Radio 2 yes I have cut 1 person and there is 2 presenters which is more than 1.
2. The presenters would work on a rota so they wouldn't be on air all day.
3. In your post you said radio so you would not get fed up of the one face it would be the one voice.
4. Also you mustn't be able to count as 14 wasn't picked out of the air if you count up all the names you will find there is fourteen (14).
5. Can I also point out that I love the BBC and personally I would happily pay more for my TV licence as they provide the best service in the world but we all know that if any other broadcaster covered Glastonbury they wouldn't send as many staff as the BBC. But I don't think anyone else would cover it as well as the BBC. Long may Glastonbury live on the BBC.
They seem to have the opinion that they are a broadcaster of record. What that means is that they have some sort of (self-appointed) obligation to provide first hand coverage of whatever global events they consider either of historical interest, important or "worthy".
Further, that their presence and coverage confers status on those events. "If we cover it, it's significant" they might say.
Now, you might assume that this is either almighty hubris on their part, or the wielding of "soft power" on behalf of the UK government (although it's all paid for by us licence payers). Whichever, since they have the budget, that's what theu choose to do with it.
That sounds like obvious common sense, something which I've suggested for years, but you do realise a policy of that and using the local broadcaster's TV coverage of world wide sports events and to have the pundits in Salford, would do so many highly paid BBC "suits" out of a job?
I don't know why the BBC seem to think that if we're going to watch any sort of event for a few hours, we would want to hear constant "rabbit" from so called "celebrity commentators or pundits."
Usual Digital Spy principle presumably, 'I am not interested so no one else is interested'?
There are all the radio networks and World Service with some foreign language services. Various news programme from WATO, PM, Newsnight etc were done from Washington as well as BBC News running all day. ITN with just a few news bulletins a day still sent 20. Even the Grauniad were nearly in double figures (possibly in double figures) over in Washington for a handful of readers.
Seriously I have yet to meet anyone who is remotely interested in the details of American politics. It was a jolly pure and simple.
The recent events in Iraq involving Isis are far more relevant to life in the UK but you won't see BBC staff queuing up to go and cover them.
I suspect most people are bored with Iraq and Syria and would prefer to watch the inauguration of POTUS to yet another report from these places.
Nothing was shown on BBC South either.
I agree a large proportion of the population will be fed up reports about the conflict in Iraq and Syria but I doubt any of them are so fed up they would willing watch Obama's inauguration ceremony.
There is a case to be made that this is an important event which should be reported but that wouldn't take more than a handful of staff. It was a jolly pure and simple.
I think most people would far prefer the LF money to be spent on reporting LOCAL events from within the UK (and outside London) than to either send a "talking head" + film crew into a war zone in the hope of them winning an award, or covering the election of an individual¹ that (almost) no-one watching in the UK had voted for, understands or is affected by their policies or could tell a donkey from an elephant.
Let's face it. Most "foreign news" can neatly be summarised as "here's a list of bad things that have happened in far away places". We don't need pictures of yet more regugees, starving / flooded / earthquaked (is that a word?) / homeless people - unless that's what viewers watch the news for: to get their kicks
[1] BTW, as Obama has shown, the myth that POTUS is "the world's most powerful leader" is completely bogus. Possibly the world's most expensive lame duck and due to the way that american political institutions are set up, little more than a figurehead, these days.
Perhaps they do so because it is the music they like?
However the "well known people" were unknown once.
I've been to many festivals and lost count of the number of bands I've never heard of who I have seen and thoroughly enjoyed. That is what makes going to a festival such fun, it isn't always about the headliners.
Roll on Sonisphere next weekend!
And roughly 300 staff for an event the size of Glastonbury is a tiny number.
Since Sky show IoW, they presumably have exclusive rights to the event meaning no one else can.
As they say, it takes all sorts.
You may only want to have local UK news reported but I for one want world news too. The BBC is a major global news organisation and turning it into a parochial information service to save a few quid on your licence fee would be a significant loss to British culture and international prestige. Nonsense. Whatever you think of Obama, the foreign policy decisions of the US president directly affect us here. So there is definite interest in who the US president is and what their policies are.
The fact is thousands of people do pay hundreds of pounds for Glastonbury tickets to see several days of live music and other entertainment. Many times more people want to buy those tickets but can't, either because they've sold out so quickly or because they can't afford it. BBC coverage of this huge music event fills that demand. As a proportion of annual BBC costs it's a drop in the ocean. Not all BBC output can be to your demanding taste. Things that aren't are not a waste.