Options
The need to send BBC staff abroad for live sports
craig_joeson
Posts: 76 Forum Member
✭
SInce next year the bbc will send their hoards of Staff to Rio for free on behalf of licence fee payers money to cover the world cup and half of them will be in glasgow to cover the common wealth games
then in 2016 rio will host olympics again bbc will be there then in 2020 japan will host the games again bbc staff get a free trip on behalf of licence fee money
by 2020 everything should be online only and live stream should be a common place and need to send staff abroad will not be needed
however in this day in age of digtal streaming and online social media is it really needed to cover live events such as many music events or sporting events as they can access the stream from another source and use that to broadcast rather than send physical humans to another country for free
why
then in 2016 rio will host olympics again bbc will be there then in 2020 japan will host the games again bbc staff get a free trip on behalf of licence fee money
by 2020 everything should be online only and live stream should be a common place and need to send staff abroad will not be needed
however in this day in age of digtal streaming and online social media is it really needed to cover live events such as many music events or sporting events as they can access the stream from another source and use that to broadcast rather than send physical humans to another country for free
why
0
Comments
Not to mention the BBC typically do a season of programming about the country in the run up to, and after the event, along with various things during the events*.
I note you use the term "hordes" of staff giving no indication you know or care how many they actually send, let alone the number required to cover it (I'm guessing that unless you just want them to use the stock feed, it probably doesn't require them to send many more to provide specific feeds for their own interviews with a presenter on site, than it does to just provide an interview feed)...
Remember there will often be multiple events on at the same time, usually with some miles away from the main ones, and all will potentially require someone to be there to meet with UK athletes who are expected to win.
IIRC at the last foreign games the BBC sent something like a quarter or less of the staff that some of the other national broadcasters did, and provided a massive amount more coverage.
*For example for the Chinese games there was a long series of programmes about the history of China, how it was changing in the late 20'th and early 21st century, how the locals thought of the changes etc, not to mention the other programming following athletes from various countries through their training.
agree with you on that sense but since we are living in the 21st century with live streaming and social media and what not i cant see bbc for their big media power house keep sending people to live events up to 2020 i mean they can send a few to operate equipement and that but to send actual presenters/celebs/personalities etc is waste of tax payers lience fee as all they need to do is cover the event and live stream over the net or skype whatever interviews rest sort itself out
in next few yrs traditional media will be dead and everything online hoping by 2020 japan games will be digital only games i,e online only or beyond that everything streamed
but again feel jelous bbc staff getting a free holiday to rio, japan, etc to cover a major sporting event
I am OK with bbc covering or sending people to cover Live UK based sporting events as getting around UK is easy and cost effective but abroad then another thing altogether
Make up, wardrobe, lighting, cameras, gallery, sound, sets, transport for guests, etc.
Which means they need their best people on location.
They also do this within radio (R5 & R4) and TV(BBC1 & BBC news). . .sending several reporters to ask the same questions to the same people/
When Murray Walker was getting too tired to travel he and James Hunt would commentate from London on some of the flyaway races yet no one noticed. The BBC has always been flamboyant and excessive on it's travel arrangements with little or no need for cost justification.
Glad you're keeping your argument current.
the argument by some was it couldn't be done without a drop in quality when in fact it has already been done so successfully it went unnoticed
while the editing (with large files) being done on site (on a 10G network) ..
this was first used in Beijing -
and was greatly used for the Olympics
- BBC Sport had more people in Salford than in Stratford...
... and it is also used for Glastonbury - all the way in W12... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/Glastonbury-Digital-Hub
But being out of the UK on BBC Work is not a holiday often 12 to14 hour days
- in some cases because you cannot afford to have more people out there.....
and I did a day trip to Jo'burg to help plan the World Cup..... no time for any sightseeing there!!
because I was needed in London the day before and after!
Depends upon the work life balance whilst out there. It would be interesting and may back up either side of the argument if they published that data so we could work out (argue) if it's a jolly or not.
What about the 'talent' do they work such gruelling schedules
IIRC the presenter you're referring to also had family in the immediate area (and possibly involved) in the events.
Now, the combination of a reasonably well known presenter from the UK, who has personal knowledge of the area, speaks the local language (and presumably knows the local expressions but can also speak "British English" clearly), and has connections through family is the sort of thing that makes a huge difference in quality of reporting...
For example if people know you/your family personally you can often get more out of them...
this totally ignores the fact that whenever there is a major event news organisations tend to send in additional staff, as they (like most industries) tend to work on the basis that they need X staff most of the time and thus have that many in the area, but also know that is something big happens the number of staff required increases (sometimes massively), so will likely have a list of "backup" staff who also know the area or subject, who aren't normally based there but can be sent at short notice if needed (without having to get new visa's issued, or needing a big briefing on the area etc)..
Scarcely a holiday.
It's a little like the BBC news channel presenter who spent years in China, had the local connections and spoke Chinese fluently, who surprisingly enough was sometimes in the UK, and sometimes in China
I assume from the way you have referred to "free" trips, you have never worked in a business where you have had to go abroad?
I have been many countries in my career and not once have I thought to myself that I was being sent somewhere for "free".
Phil Mackie hardly sounds like a local to me....
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=46493037&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=w4ax&locale=en_US&srchid=193918391381084368336&srchindex=2&srchtotal=12&trk=vsrp_people_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A193918391381084368336%2CVSRPtargetId%3A46493037%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary
It all depends on who you are and what you do. A good friends dad was in the weapons industry and got sent to Singapore for 4 days actual work but had 6 weeks (yes 6 weeks) acclimatisation staying all inc in Raffles hotel! So it was for work but an all paid for jolly at the same time
but another friend did a lot of travelling and his boss would make him travel on Sunday in his own time and get back Saturday for Monday in the workshop. He had 10 years and a world map full of pins which he hated the sight of.
So the 'workers' may hate it but I suspect the 'talent' don't see the problem..
In those two complete extremes you've given, which one do you think is the norm?
I stay in 4 or 5 star hotels and everything was paid for by my employer (I'm self employed now and pay it through my business). I still never saw it as a benefit as I would usually be working 14hr days.
Obviously they saved a fortune on USA '94 when no British National teams qualified.
How it is a 'Free Trip' if the BBC Employee is working?
What Social Media & Online Coverage has to do with the number of BBC employees needed to cover the events?
What the cost difference is between covering it from London/Salford or in the event location?
Or is it just another 'Daily Mail' Style attack on the BBC, which is just doing what all the other major world broadcasters will do to cover the sport.
At the time I was employed by a BBC subsidiary ...
And yes the talent often are working on those sort of schedules ...
He presumably thinks it will all done from people holding up wobbly mobile phones and sending via Twitter, Facebook etc!
I think we can all predict the headlines in our favourite newspaper about the amateurish coverage.
It's a perennial problem with 9 to 5 people. I used to spend a lot of time on the road. The people at the base thought we had a great time, in the pub every night drinking (all on expenses of course). The expenses at that time were not bad and I probably ate better than I did at home but sitting in a hotel room all evening on your own with not much to do apart from watch TV is not my idea of fun. You normally could not carry on with any hobbies or interests that you had unless they were very portable.