Free BBC holidays to South Africa.

SpouthouseSpouthouse Posts: 1,046
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Ok, I realise it isn't everybody's ideal destination, but there do seem to be a huge number of people jumping on the BBC all-expenses-paid excursion bus. I don't have a problem with sports correspondents travelling, but it seems as though every presenter and his brother have convinced Auntie Beeb that they really need to "be there". How many more times will we hear the words "I'll be reporting from South Africa next week" I wonder?
«13456717

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,585
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The way the beeb waste money which is basically tax payers money is a very unfunny joke.

    I read, not sure how accurate it is that the beeb are taking more people then ITV (who are covering same amount of games), talkSPORT (who are covering all the games) and SKY.

    And it's not just that they take more people its the fact that they are wasting so much money.
  • ShrikeShrike Posts: 16,592
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The beeb don't do themselves any favours do they? After heavy criticism of overmanning the Chinese Olympics and with Dave 'n Nick's axe about to fall on many jobs they really should have made an effort to cut costs to the bone.
  • gottagogottago Posts: 14,094
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Overmanning the Olympics?! They sent the amount of people they needed to send in order to provide their extensive coverage!

    It always sounds like they send a lot of people abroad for these events but they genuinly need to send all these people in order to produce programmes of this scale. They'd be using the same amount amount if this event was being held in the UK.
  • StaunchyStaunchy Posts: 10,904
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I see Julia Bradbury is now walking in South Africa, why do they have to do all these trips for other programmes/presenters as some sort of a tie in with events like the World Cup?.
  • The SnakesThe Snakes Posts: 8,940
    Forum Member
    Why can't they take pictures from the host broadcaster and do commentary from the BBC studios in London? Why do Gary and "the lads" have to be there in South Africa? Why can't they do it from the usual MOTD studio?
  • therightdealtherightdeal Posts: 2,973
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not particularly surprising that the Beeb do this and appear to constantly get away with it.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    Can we have some context here, rather than just "ooh, that's a big number"?

    Sky's live football games use over 100 staff!

    Big Brother has a production team of over 200 staff!

    Suddenly the number of staff going to World Cup seems a bit lower.....
  • The SnakesThe Snakes Posts: 8,940
    Forum Member
    mikw wrote: »
    Can we have some context here, rather than just "ooh, that's a big number"?

    Sky's live football games use over 100 staff!

    Big Brother has a production team of over 200 staff!

    Suddenly the number of staff going to World Cup seems a bit lower.....
    People choose to pay for Sky Sports.

    People choose to watch Big Brother, and choose to buy the products that sponsor it.

    The BBC is a public service. Most people couldn't care less whether the commentators and pundits are in South Africa or London. Keep costs low wherever possible should be the BBCs mandate.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    The Snakes wrote: »
    People choose to pay for Sky Sports.

    People choose to watch Big Brother, and choose to buy the products that sponsor it.

    The BBC is a public service. Most people couldn't care less whether the commentators and pundits are in South Africa or London. Keep costs low wherever possible should be the BBCs mandate.

    Believe me, the BBC know this too.

    It's just that it takes a certain amount of people to do coverage that the viewers have come to expect.

    Whenever we have one of these threads about the amount of BBC staff that are used to cover events, it usually turns out that they often take LESS staff than other broadcasters who cover the same event, and provide MORE coverage!

    I think the "choice" card is bit irrelevant to be honest, people need to know how many people it actually takes equivalent broadcasters to cover these events - then they can make an informed descision.
  • gottagogottago Posts: 14,094
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Snakes wrote: »
    People choose to pay for Sky Sports.

    People choose to watch Big Brother, and choose to buy the products that sponsor it.

    The BBC is a public service. Most people couldn't care less whether the commentators and pundits are in South Africa or London. Keep costs low wherever possible should be the BBCs mandate.
    Who are these "most people"? I think you'll find that "most people" would like the best coverage possible from one of the world's most celebrated broadcasters. Having the commentary from London rather than the stadium is not good television as we've seen from various games on Five over the years that have done this. Sending a few more people out there really doesn't cost that much when compared to costs in the rest of the organisation.

    This always comes up whenever a major sporting event happens, it's just another way for people with no knowledge of television production costs and needs to moan about the licence fee, ignoring the fact that they're providing world-class coverage.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,535
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Am not into BBC-bashing as a rule, but even I was very surprised to hear that Five Live's breakfast show and Danny Bakers Saturday morning show are being broadcast from SA from tomorrow onwards. Neither of these are anything to do with coverage of games and I'm struggling to think what it achieves or adds to their shows, them broadcasting live from SA?

    I can see that individually those shows will probably only use the same production staff that are already out there to cover the games, but even sending the presenters is a bit of a pointless expense imho, I don't imagine they'll be boarding in a hostel for a month.

    Radio, so apologies, slightly OT.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,705
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I believe journalist who have been in the field and worked there before and also those that have served in more dangerous places should be rewarded. Also I'm sick and tired of the eye candy being whisked off to places like South Africa to report from there. Because behind these Jockeys which is what they are, are talented news gatherers who may not have the look but have the nous for new gathering, give them a go, instead of these quasi celeb-presenters-news readers!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 586
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    When will people learn that the BBC is a tarnished organization that will not change it's spendthrift ways until the British people reject the unfair TV Licence Tax.

    No publicly funded broadcaster should fritter away its money on grotesquely overpaid 'talent', layer upon layer of superfluous management, vast real estate holdings, chasing ratings with dire programmes such as Eastenders, Top Gear etc. and freebies/jollies for unnecessary personnel to events like the World Cup and the Olympics.
  • SpouthouseSpouthouse Posts: 1,046
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    Believe me, the BBC know this too.

    It's just that it takes a certain amount of people to do coverage that the viewers have come to expect.

    How do you know the viewers expect to see people actually in South Africa? I would be intriged to hear how either you or the BBC could know that.
  • SpouthouseSpouthouse Posts: 1,046
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    ...people need to know how many people it actually takes equivalent broadcasters to cover these events - then they can make an informed descision.
    The BBC is taking approximately 300 staff to South Africa. ITV is taking about half that number. I think I've just made my informed decision.
  • gottagogottago Posts: 14,094
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Spouthouse wrote: »
    The BBC is taking approximately 300 staff to South Africa. ITV is taking about half that number. I think I've just made my informed decision.
    The BBC is doing radio coverage, ITV is not.

    Generally the BBC's coverage across all platforms will be greater than that of ITV though ITV is certainly giving it a much greater push this time round.
  • TheEngineerTheEngineer Posts: 7,785
    Forum Member
    Spouthouse wrote: »
    The BBC is taking approximately 300 staff to South Africa. ITV is taking about half that number. I think I've just made my informed decision.

    Remind me again how much radio coverage ITV will be providing? :rolleyes:

    I suggest those people who think this is a lot of people should have a read of this thread:

    http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1273271

    Clearly most of the comments in this thread are from people who have no idea how much work is involved in television and radio production.

    Or is this thread just a trolling exercise? :rolleyes:
  • SpouthouseSpouthouse Posts: 1,046
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gottago wrote: »
    The BBC is doing radio coverage, ITV is not.

    The BBC are taking around 50 radio staff. That still means that they are taking about 100 more TV staff than ITV. I do understand that for some people that's fine, as they see the extra value. Personally I don't, but I am of course only one person.
  • gottagogottago Posts: 14,094
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Spouthouse wrote: »
    The BBC are taking around 50 radio staff. That still means that they are taking about 100 more TV staff than ITV. I do understand that for some people that's fine, as they see the extra value. Personally I don't, but I am of course only one person.
    The BBC also has two 24 hour news channels that will be providing coverage from the tournament. ITV does not.
  • SpouthouseSpouthouse Posts: 1,046
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Clearly most of the comments in this thread are from people who have no idea how much work is involved in television and radio production.
    Let's just analyse what you're saying here for a minute. You're saying that we shouldn't really question the numbers the BBC send to South Africa unless we have an insight into TV and radio production.

    I don't really need a great insight though do I? I can just compare how ITV and BBC do it. And if I see ITV covering events as well as the BBC but at a lower cost, surely I have the right, as a licence fee payer, to question it.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    Spouthouse wrote: »
    Let's just analyse what you're saying here for a minute. You're saying that we shouldn't really question the numbers the BBC send to South Africa unless we have an insight into TV and radio production.

    Well, it does help. Did you know, for example, it costs the BBC £47,000 on average for a low budget programme like "Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe"?
    I don't really need a great insight though do I? I can just compare how ITV and BBC do it. And if I see ITV covering events as well as the BBC but at a lower cost, surely I have the right, as a licence fee payer, to question it.

    Do you know it's at a lower cost? I mean, we don't know what the costs are!

    All we can say, is that BBC wages are often lower than those paid for in the commercial sector, so don't be so sure.

    Also, the BBC will be covering many more hours worth of the tournament on TV and radio and their website.

    I remember a similar storm blew up over the olympics coverage, not helped by an hysterical article in "The Sun". What "the Sun" failed to report was the BBC took less staff than some of the USA broadcasters - and had more coverage!
  • gottagogottago Posts: 14,094
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Spouthouse wrote: »
    Let's just analyse what you're saying here for a minute. You're saying that we shouldn't really question the numbers the BBC send to South Africa unless we have an insight into TV and radio production.

    I don't really need a great insight though do I? I can just compare how ITV and BBC do it. And if I see ITV covering events as well as the BBC but at a lower cost, surely I have the right, as a licence fee payer, to question it.
    Oh come on, you must be aware that ITV's football coverage is widely regarded as being of a far lower standard than that of the BBC's.
  • SpouthouseSpouthouse Posts: 1,046
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There are obviously quite a few people who feel strongly on both sides of this discussion. However, I think it's worth saying that it's through having discussions like this that public companies are made aware that they are accountable to the people who fund them.

    The BBC took 350 people to the last World Cup and themselves accepted that they needed to cut that number down this time. But that was only through public and Governmental pressure.

    Perhaps they've got it right this year, who knows. I think it's important to keep asking the question though.
  • SpouthouseSpouthouse Posts: 1,046
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    Do you know it's at a lower cost? I mean, we don't know what the costs are!

    True, we don't. I guess we judge by what we see and hear, and that means we don't necessarily get it right. Of course, it also means we don't necessarily get it wrong.

    Does that mean it's ok to ask the questions but not to assume that we know the answers, or that we shouldn't even ask the questions?
  • MrsRobinsonMrsRobinson Posts: 4,492
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I read the other day that Gary Lineker is having a bodyguard costing £100,000 whilst
    he's in South Africa! :eek: I wonder what the BBC's total spend will be for the duration!
Sign In or Register to comment.