Free BBC holidays to South Africa.
Spouthouse
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?
0
Comments
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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"?
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!
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.
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?
he's in South Africa! :eek: I wonder what the BBC's total spend will be for the duration!