T for 324?
>> Saturday, July 11, 2009
So, you thought the BBC indulgence fest at Glastonbury was an excess?
The BBC has sent 324 people to cover this year's T in the Park music festival, it was disclosed today. The corporation came under fire last month after it emerged that it had sent more than 400 staff to the Glastonbury music festival. Today the BBC confirmed 139 staff, with 158 freelance contractors, and 27 people from Radio 1, were all working at the three-day event - which is Scotland biggest music festival.
Well worth your mandatory license tax? A vast bloated monstrosity that needs reduced to rubble.
115 comments:
Dreadful, absolutely dreadful.
All they obviously need is to send one person with a dictaphone. How dare they try and cover events professionally? The nerve of them!
How many should they have sent? How many would be needed to cover such an event?
Tell us David, what do you know about the resources needed to cover such an event?
I would suggest you know as much about providing television, radio, online and interactive coverage of major events as you seem to know about most other subjects.
David,
I think you've struck a nerve with another 'anonymous' Beeboid.
That 'Mail' report also features in the 'Sunday Times' , as does ANOTHER report of typical BBC extravagance:
"BBC staff lavished with trips to lobby for awards"
by Chris Hastings.
[Opeening extract]:
"Judging by the Golden Globe television awards, the prize for best free trip and luxury hotel stay should go to . . . the BBC.
"It has emerged that the corporation spent tens of thousands of pounds flying producers, directors and stars from one of its leading costume dramas to Hollywood so that they could lobby for prizes at award festivals."
-From 'Sunday Times' - radio & TV section.)
"Tell us David, what do you know about the resources needed to cover such an event?"
I suspect we *all* know the answer to that one, Anonymous.
There was an excellent illustration of Beeboid extravagance and self importance on "from our own correspondent" today. The story was ostensibly about the "austere" G8 summit held in Italy - the Beeboid report was one long whine about how uncomfortable it was for journalists and how she didn't get any sleep. I think she mentioned that three times.
"Decline and fall of the BBC empire"
[Introduction]:
"The BBC is crumbling under the weight of its own monolithic structure, and suffering from the extravagances of its self-indulgent leaders".
By Gill Hornby ('Telegraph' 8 July.)
If they must cover some music festival of shitty bands, that most people haven't even heard of, let along give two shits about, in some Third World country, then I'd suggest 1 camera-monkey and one semi-literate tight-jeans and ironic-t-shirt wearing bedwetting faggot to present it. Then send the footage of the dross back to Television Center (in the usual BBC style: stretch limosine full of cocaine, diamonds and high-end gigolos) for one or a handful of the BBC's 100,000 resident Media Studies graduates to edit (in the manner a chimpanzee with a bag of crack, a computer and a copy of Windows Movie Maker might) and wank out onto the airwaves so most of us can go, 'Eh, what's this bollocks? *click*'
Hey, BBC. Everyone's laughing at you. Your days are numbered. Enjoy your largesse on our dime whilst you can, you parasites.
Scott m and anon, I think the BBC should send as many as all other uk tv stations combined. How many is that then?
I think we all know the answer to that too.
Hello Beeboids Scott M and anon.
Only in your bloated fantasy world could 324 people possibly be needed to cover professionally a second-rate rock festival. That would mean fewer jobs for the boys though, wouldn't it...
Unfortunately for the media scroungers, yet ANOTHER scandal about the BBC is breaking...
BBC wastes hundreds of thousands on lobbying trips around the globe
The question is should the BBC cover these events at all.
If so shouldn't the event actually pay the BBC to do it?
One director,one cameraman,one sound recordists who knows how to plug into the main PA desk one presenter.
The rest can fuck off home.
Robert S. McNamara
Presumably you are a Yank - in Britain we use pence rather than dimes, and tend to avoid the pretentious use of a middle initial.
In which case, who the hell are you to complain about the activities of the BBC.
Anonymous writes: "Presumably you are a Yank - in Britain we use pence rather than dimes, and tend to avoid the pretentious use of a middle initial."
You mean like Winston S. Churchill?
Can't someone ban this troll?
Deprived of legalised theft from the taxpayer, it would be interesting to see how the Beeb fared in a proper marketplace trying to justify paying so many staff to cover this fart of a festival.
'Presumably you are a Yank...'
You presume wrong, Billy. I'm English born and bred. And you'd know that if you looked through the comment archives. Where are you from? Nevermind - I don't care.
Anoymous said
'One director,one cameraman,one sound recordists who knows how to plug into the main PA desk one presenter.
The rest can fuck off home.'
But what about the rentboys & drug dealers to keep beeboids supplied?
The Beeb can't function without Columbian marching powder.
"But what about the rentboys & drug dealers to keep beeboids supplied?
The Beeb can't function without Columbian marching powder."
It's a music festival, the Beeboids can forage like everyone else.Bound to be plenty for all tastes.
Scott rightfully points out that as most of us are not professional broadcasters, we aren't qualified to judge the numbers needed to cover an event. Obviously the number at this event seems a trifle high to most of us but of course we have some bias in our estimates.
I wonder how high the number would have to be where an impartial observer like Scott would say "that sounds like a few too many folks". 600? 1,000? 2,000?
Scott, are there any other institutions that you feel are beyond suspicion?
Will Jones
David posts at 9.55pm. Scott M posts his first comment at 10.30pm. The 'Anonymous' who often shadows Scott on these threads also posts at exactly 10.30pm. Both criticise David. Scott replies at 10.41 to the 10.30pm 'Anonymous', agreeing with him. Suspicious?
I think there are more important questions to be asked here than the why's and wherefores of personnel numbers because they are irrelevant if commensurate to the task.
The BBC stated that they are the broadcast partner of the event.
So I want to know.....
1) Did the BBC bid the market rate, or above market rates, to purchase broadcasting rights for the event?
2) .....If so (because then they are making a loss not a profit), how much of a subsidy from license payers money was used to offset costs in order to secure the bid from, and outbid, commercial rivals Sky, ITV, Ch4?
3) How much did the BBC eventually pay 'T in the Park' to secure broadcasting rights???
....because 'T in the Park' made money from the BBC guaranteed!!!....they are not putting a festival on and giving valuable broadcasting rights away for the public good.
4) Did the BBC undercut commercial rivals and thus distort the market providing poor license payer value for money and providing a service which would have been provided in any case by those rivals?
5) How many other public events that the BBC 'support' were the result of securing broadcasting rights of events by overbidding, at a net profit loss, by subsidising with the license fee.
Any Beeboid trolls out there want to publish the contract and negotiations!!! Set the Daily Telegraph on em!!!
Craig 7:00 AM, July 12, 2009 implies Scott M and Anonymous are one and the same. I doubt it, as it would take quite some talent to compose-send; remove ID from the comments; then compose-send as someone else, all between 01:30:00 and 01:30:59.
Checking whether Scott M and Anonymous send from the same IP is simple using the tools available to the administrator. If they use different computers, it's easy enough to check whether they come from the same SP or even the same town.
It all sounds very Monty Pythonist to think of one commenter jumping from computer to computer to disguise his or her identity on Biased-BBC. Almost as much a waste of time as sending 324 people to cover this year's T in the Park.
Just how many jollies due these truoghers go on?
1 employee covering this cack would be too many
deegee
My suspicion was only that they are in cahoots, friends egging each other on, alerting each other by e-mail whenever David starts a thread so as to launch a concerted attack. I could, of course, be completely wrong.
That's collectivisim for you. As good socialists, Beeboids are keen on group endeavour, especially when paid for by someone else.
"I could, of course, be completely wrong."
Of course, you are. I wouldn't worry though: David Vance shows how possible it is to never let being wrong get in one's way.
shows the beeboids clearly don't like this site when the trolls come rolling in
trying to stifle adverse opinion-you gotta praise their consistency if nothing else.....and of course there is nothing else ;)
Scott,
Thanks for not taking it personally. I will make myself write out 100 lines in praise of the BBC for being such a suspicious so-and-so.
"the debate is over,the science is in-pop festivals do need covering and it takes as many staff as possible to indulge themsleves at our expense"
arseholes
As a beeboid who comes here to lurk occaisionally (not the same one as above) I have to say you cannot have this both ways.
I see constant demands on threads for the "BBC" to explain itself. But when staff or supporters come on here to say "hang on a mo" about any given subject they're automatically "trolls" or "stifling debate".
Challenging an assumption is not "stifling" debate. It's HAVING a debate!
You used to have a couple of regulars here from the Beeb - but the abuse and intransigance even in the face of quite mild "setting straight" drove them off.
As a result, the fairer points you make no longer get properly debated internally at the Beeb the way they used to be.
I raised a good point you had made here recently on the internal message boards. No one was interested. I think they see "Biased BBC" and assume its going to be either bonkers or abusive (or both) and simply don't bother.
You can either bellow in the dark to yourselves, or actually engage and challenge. Your choice.
I would like to see what 350 people actually do for that period of time.
Clearly there is no need for 350 people to cover a festival, either the level of inefficiency is appaling or they are simply letting the staff go on a freebie (are festival appearances taxed as benefit in kind?).
The other side to this story is as rock festivals are adequately covered by the commercial sector, so BBC is spending a fortune on somehting that in all likliehood be available to be the public any way.
The BBC has become a bloated, unrepresentitive, unaccountable, arrogant, hypocritical and greedy monster.
Anon, thank you, the problem is that contributions from anonymous BBC types are often of the "you are all fascists" variety, reinforcing the impression BBC is a left wing unaccountable monolith.
Take the contribution above; there was no attempt to tell us why 350 people are necessary. Just a petulant squeak that suggests BBC believes it is above having to account for how it spends the public’s money. Also in an unreconstructed public sector organisation it is possible to make up work, so it would be interesting to know how many people a commercial sector broadcaster would need and what benchmarking the BBC uses in this respect.
Being generous, assuming 2 stages are being covered at any time and staff are working in shifts I can imagine that a reasonably high production quality broadcast might need 50 people, though I am sure an efficient commercial sector broadcaster could get the job done a lot cheaper. And do we really need to see The Killers plod through their dreary pretentious sub rock for the 98th time this year? And do run of the mill festival gigs really need to be covered with higher production values than The Band’s Last Waltz.
I.e.
Camera operators 20
Sound 10
Engineers and editors 6
Presenters 4
Producers (radio and TV) 4
Riggers / gaffers / Roadies / drivers 6
Now, if we are going to be reasonable, maybe we could see the full staff list.?
By way of your starter for 10, The Last Waltz listed 19 people in the production credits, and the Woodstock movie was done with less than seventy people.
I look forward to your full and informative response.
Anon 11.22
"As a result your fairer points no longer get debated at the BBC the way they used to be"
What sanctimonious rubbish.
For the most part the BBC staff (hardly any !) who tried to engage in discussions here were treated courteously.
Whether this site exists or not - on many topics there is NO fair debate at the BBC. On subjects like climate warming there is an utterly closed mind at the BBC - just read today's proof of that by Peter Sissons. People make the same points on BBC blogs and Have Your Say threads - the BBC simply ignores them on a whole range of issues. Given the choice between your claims of "fair debate" and what people like Antony Jay and Peter Sissons say about systemic bias at the BBC - you just don't figure.
As another example - utter obsession and dismissal of Sarah Palin at the BBC, utter failure by the BBC to examine Obama's real capability and experience, and since the inauguration a huge amount of "Obama-worship" at the BBC, failure to report properly how his ratings have sagged and the degree of cross-party opposition to his endless raising of taxation and debt.
The BBC has derelicted its duty to be fair and balanced. On a whole range of issues the BBC has a kneejerk and often rabid bias.
If people occasionally blow their stack at this disgrace, so what - why shouldn't some of the posters be incensed at you at the BBC bleeding us for the licence tax and then abusing your responsibility to avoid bias.
And you at the BBC then compound the insult by grossly wasting money - and turning out a load of duff secondrate programmes.
As Cpl Jones would say - they don't like it up'em !
"THE BBC is despatching a 420-strong army to cover The Open golf championship in Scotland this week, the 'Sunday Express' has discovered."
[...]
.."licence fee payers are being asked to fork out for two radio stations’ coverage.
"While Five Live is sending at least 35 staff, BBC Radio Scotland will have a separate team of 21 for its coverage.
"A spokeswoman said: 'It’s important that BBC Radio Scotland sounds Scottish. This is a major local story.' Despite pledges by director general Mark Thompson this month to make the BBC the most transparent organisation in the public sector, the spokeswoman refused to reveal how much it was spending on the event."
-Plenty of letters critical of the BBC in today's
'Sunday Times' ('Letters' section).
"A spokeswoman said: 'It’s important that BBC Radio Scotland sounds Scottish."
So why not just use the Scottish sounding people - its not as if anyone south of the border would not understand them, unless they where speaking gaelic.
Its a riduculous argument,many Scots, Irish and Welsh presenters are often used on the BBC.
JohnA
Well said.
Yeah, I was watching the F1 qualifying (one thing on the BBC that isn't total shit) yesterday and the golf was on afterwards. Hazel Irvine was presenting...from a yatch on Loch Lomond. No doubt full of gold bullion, Dom Perignon and raw cocaine hydrochloride. The most socialist government in the world couldn't waste other people's money like the BBC can.
The rise of the mediocre. If the BBC wants to pander to base, trashy, juvenile durge then it should allow advertising and be slowly privatized - simples.
"Scott rightfully points out that as most of us are not professional broadcasters, we aren't qualified to judge the numbers needed to cover an event."
Seen more of these events done than you have had hot dinners,Real professionals have to keep the costs down,probably use freelance crew on a daily basis.The BBC takes them because they have got them on full time salary.
The BBC certainly doesn't need 300 plus people to cover this pop concert. It needs nobody as it doesn't need to cover the concert. Nobody needs TV coverage of it. Some people want it, that's all.
The BBC should be made subscription based so anyone who wants what it provides can pay for it, leaving the rest of us alone. Until the licence fee is scrapped the BBC has no need to be accountable to its customers.
I'm the anon person who started this latest wave.
Will try to head back after putting five year old to bed.
But I will just say this ...
6 riggers?
Did I read that right?
SIX?
For multiple stages, cranes, scafolding, towers, tracks, screens, lights?
Exactly how many months ahead of the festival were these six supposed to start?!
"6 riggers?
Did I read that right?
SIX?
For multiple stages, cranes, scafolding, towers, tracks, screens, lights?
Exactly how many months ahead of the festival were these six supposed to start?!"
WTF for,they aren't shooting "Gone With The Wind".Some of the best work I've seen has been done with hand held cameras. Next you will be wanting a helicopter to shoot crowd scenes.
It would be cheaper for the BBC to give all those interested a free ticket.
Thought I'd need a nickname for this debate.
Anonymous, I am going to resist the temptation to take the piss straight away and say this instead:
"some of the best work I've seen has been done with hand held cameras"
Two queries:
Firstly, define "hand held camera" please
And secondly, I'd love to know the context and knowledge behind that statement.
Anon:
"I think they see "Biased BBC" and assume its going to be either bonkers or abusive (or both) and simply don't bother."
So the name Biased BBC is too offensive for the holy ones to take criticism seriously? Can you not see the irony and the hypocrisy from this fact alone?
Perhaps their royal hignesses could suggest a more P.C name for a site that highlights BBC bias.
Anon, what you are saying is just utter rubbish and you know it. The reason the BBC ignore this site has nothing to do with their preconceptions, but everything to do with their dismissive arrogance that no criticism will ever be listened to outside of their select group of minority whingers.
And your suggestion that BBC staff were treated unfairly here is also total crap. The sarcastic, obnoxious arrogance of John Reith did nothing to promote the impartial understanding nature of Beeboids you would have us believe exists.
Ratass Shrugged:
Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear.
What I was trying to say:
Issues from this site USED to be debated on message boards internally.
It pointed a fair few BBC types to this site.
Now, if anyone raises an issue from this site, no one responds.
I'm surmising that people are reacting to how this site is at times. Not its name.
I have to admit some sudden sympathy with John Reith. I found it very, VERY hard not to be sarcastic a few moments ago. Rereading my post I suspect I didn't avoid it altogether.
you can be sure that if an independant (non sate funded) broadcaster were to coner these events, the numbers sent would much lower. The BBC has been into extravagance and waste for yeats, it does not recognise it because it has always been so. For me the lecturing, Social engineering and political correctmess of the BBC is far more disturbing.
You can be sure that if an independant (non sate funded) broadcaster were to cover these events, the numbers sent would much lower. The BBC has been into extravagance and waste for yeats, it does not recognise it because it has always been so. For me, the lecturing, social engineering and political correctmess of the BBC is far more disturbing.
Right. One at a time:
Martin would like to see what 350 people do for that period of time.
Well, the staffing isn't broken down in over much detail but, broadly, most of those "freelance contractors" will have been rigging scaffolding, lights, camera points etc. They will work just before and just after the festival. But not, on the whole, during.
For the rest, you'll have two shifts (minimum) filming music across however many stages T in the Park has. Multiple cameras in each case. A director, pa and vision mixer too.
You'll have the ENG crews for news.
Presenters for TV plus the usual production paraphenalia - sparks, camera operators, sound, director, vision mixer, pa, producer and (because the lucky sods work in network) make up.
On the radio side including them in the 350 is a little unfair - because actually there won't be many more staff there than would normally be working on a given show anyway. Perhaps an extra runner per show plus the SM at BH.
They will have engineering support that wouldn't be needed if they stuck to a studio. But that'll be a central resource.
I'm not going to get into the web stuff because I know too little about what that takes to do well.
nrg made a number of points
Inefficiency: I am not about to pretend that the Beeb is perfect on this score. Of course it isn't. No organisation is. At my end of the business we do sometimes duplicate for fear of missing a crucial story or moment when, in hindsight, we needn't have done. That said, ALL decisions where I am are taken with a keen eye on the bottom line and cost benefit.
Freebies: Anyone who has somehow swung a pass won't be included in that 350, and they'll only be there on their days off. There's is NO WAY you would make the list for a job like this unless there was (lots) of work for you to do.
Where I work we once had a view that "other" bits of the organisation were swinging the lead a touch. Having worked alongside some of the people I used to slag off I now know that's bollocks. They work long hours and they work hard.
Some jobs, sometimes, involve long periods of "hanging about". Its avoided where possible cos its no fun for anyone.
"Commercial stations cover this": Who, pray tell?
"Petulant squeak": I sort of see where that comes from. The persistant Daily Mail "did you SEE how many staff the BBC sent" story for everything from the Olympics to this to the Golf does rather wear you out.
They NEVER compare like with like. They never explain how many more networks we're covering than broadcasters from other countries. And they never explain the concept of the "host broadcaster".
Explaining it for them is wearying.
"The Band's Last Waltz":
Sorry, nrg, even by your own numbers you've done yourself there.
Its not two stages, with the digital streams its a minimum of four.
But, lets take two, even before radio and the presentation side, by your reckoning we should be up to 200 people with just two shifts. And that takes no account of the extra complexities of the size of the event and the fact its outdoors. And most importantly, that is not all recorded - its an OB.
We look pretty efficient, no?
More tomorrow.
I have some Torchwoods to watch on iPlayer.
Why are the BBC wasting my money covering this boring trash in the first place ?
The Visitor
How generous of a few BBC staff to deign to consider a few external criticisms. Really big of them. 22,000 or so BBC employees, and the odd handful pay attention to considered criticisms.
Trouble is - nothing happens. The BBC is mired in bias. You for example have failed to answer why Peter Sissons should accuse the BBC of having a totally closed view on climate change. Care to take that one up and prove him wrong ? That would be a real laugh.
At least criticisms posted here get published. Criticisms posted at BBC blogs and Have Your Say threads are heavily blocked by the "moderators". No matter how politely expressed, trenchant criticism of BBC themes and biases are usually censored. Yes - CENSORED. As a pensioner I really object to the idea of the BBC practising censorship of ideas and comments. And the censorship is all in one direction - the "moderators" allow all sorts of incendiary and offensive stuff through from people adhering to the BBC party line.
.....................
Meanwhile criticisms of BBC programmes are usually dealt with by "stock" replies. Replies EVENTUALLY given by email do not allow the complainer to challenge the reply directly - the complainer has to start the whole process all over again. The complainer has no copy under the BBC process of the original complaint. A system designed to frustrate criticism. Deliberately designed to do so.
..................
re the Scottish music festival - 350 people sounds grossly excessive - and that is on top of all the other funding the BBC seems to have given this MINORITY event. Sounds to me like a total cost of well over a million pounds, maybe several million. It is typical of your arrogance that you can't see why so many people think this is excessive, over-the-top - and UNFAIR to licence-fee prisoners.
A similar number of people are being deployed by the BBC for the Open golf. That may make at least some sense - multiple holes to be covered, a longer event, and a requirement to transmit globally a MAJOR event. But 350 for an obscure musical event most people have never heard of is ridiculous - the BBC running amok with our money.
Thank you for your response, The Visitor.
However what you say begs the question whether T In The Park warranted that degree of coverage.
Surely one hugely resource hungry pop festivale is sufficient? Indeed, many viewers will consider the coverage of Glasonbury excessive.
I imagine the underlying motivation was partly tribal/territorial (I gather this even happened in Scotland?) and a desire to curry favour with the BBC's favoured demographic.
I am the original Anonymous above and I wasn't suggesting that 324 people isn't excessive. Simply put, I have no idea whether that's too many. I'm really not qualified to say. My point is, I don't think David Vance or anyone else here who has commented is qualified either.
It always strikes me that when newspapers publish this kind of story, whether it's about the BBC or not, I wonder is that too many? How can I know?
If the story has been about the BBC sending sending 350 staff, you'd think that would be too many. If the figure had been 285, you'd feel the same.
To know, you'd have to have some knowledge of what kind of resources are needed to cover these kind of large scale concerts for TV and radio, you'd have to look at the total output across various platforms. My point is that I don't know, and so far I haven't seen any evidence that anyone here has any clue either.
I'm open-minded but I think it would be useful for the site to actually make some effort to find the answers to these questions rather than jump on this kind of story and work on the uninformed assumption that it's excessive.
The Visitor
Don't be pedantic,you know there are plenty of one man portable cameras.
Let me ask you a question what are your qualifications?
"We look pretty efficient, no?"
No! Certainly no cost effective. Why not see if an independent would cover this and buy it off them?
Anon
Get yourself a name please. I have.
I'm not being pedantic.
It was YOU who made a quality argument. Even amongst the people I work with, what they would or could mean by the phrase "hand held camera" would vary wildly.
I would think of a Z1 or similar. That would be totally (as opposed to just mildly) ludicrous for a concert.
I wanted to check that was what you meant before I was openly contemptuous.
I have well over fifteen years in broadcasting. More in radio than in telly but a substantial amount of both. I present, report, film and edit in both media.
I do a little new media.
My questions stand.
The rest of you, sorry to post and run but I couldn't let that one from anon go.
I do want to have a life this evening.
Back tomorrow.
The Visitor -
are you not completely missing the point. Irrespective of how many people are needed to film events, the editorial decision to film /broadcast is the key one. What VFM analysis was done - what were the audience figures and what was the public reaction.
Goodness knows I hate the patronising socialist engineering of East Enders but millions of people seem to enjoy it, and it is comparatively cheap. If you take the cost of an episode and divide it by the viewing figures this gives you a cost per view ratio. It would be useful to have a comparative figure for T in the park / Glasto or based on any other appropriate OB event, pref. benchmarked with different producers / broadcasters.
BBC editorial policy dictates the events it will broadcast irrespective of public demand, and based on its prejudices (for which it will pay a lot). I'd bet that you would get the adequate viewing figures (at least matching 'Glasto') if the BBC did an OB campaign based on the Henley Royal Regatta.
What chance that then?
Very last thing for tonight. Honest!
Its all too much
Surely, as its music, the equivalent is actually The Proms?
And we do do that. In fact, we fund it from start to finish ...
I'm afraid I can't answer your other questions. WAY above my pay grade!
If you're genuinely interested put in an FOI request.
"I have well over fifteen years in broadcasting."
A beginner.only a beginner would be that pedantic.
"And we do do that. In fact, we fund it from start to finish ..."
The authentic voice of subsidised broadcasting. WE pay for it.
The visitor
thanks, I accept the point about the Proms, but my main assertions remain 1) the BBC is an institutionally biased organisation that has certain favourite causes and events (how may people actually watch the London Marathon?) 2) BBC OB appears to be lavish.
I remember reading that when Natasha Kaplinski(a reader of news and worth ever penny of £1m pa or whatever C5 pays her)went of on a BBC jolly to Kenya to do a few 'going live' shots, she insisted on taking her personal makeup artist with her. Perhaps no one in Kenya can apply slap.
Who in their right mind thought that sending here there was a good idea, and who signed the expenses off
Visitor, you really do not have a clue about anything except arrogantly gorging on other people's money.
I have toured with bands, done TV shows and know that this is excessive, it is just overpaid, coked up BBC vermin swanning around, with three people to do the job of one and telling themselves how improtant they are.
Fuck it, you are just all scum, low, filthy, parasitic scum. That is what a large chunk of the population think of you, now away to an expensive hotel with your overpaid incompetent spin doctores to develop the multi platform strategy to ignore the licence payer who do not buy into you vile socialist utopia.
And, that, ladies and gentleman, is why so few of us pay attention to you anymore - even though we know we should.
Go on, I defy anyone here to go back over our exchange and suggest that I was anything less than civil to nrg, or (a little teasing aside) treated his points less than fairly.
The reason Sky News succeeded on a very tight budget from the start in 1987 was that Murdoch and Andrew Neil staffed the news operation leanly. Using one person where the BBC would use 5 or 8 or 10. Neil explained the whole thing to me one lunchtime, I was amazed at the BBC profligacy. He said the BBC presented a big fat underbelly, a sitting target for a businesslike organisation like Sky.
Visitor,
Why do you think it concerns me - as lead writer on this site - as to whether the issues raised here are debated on BBC boards? Perhaps you do not quite get it - I come here not to praise the BBC but to bury it. If you feel unable to answer the many fair points raised by the many who comment here, I suggest it is because you cannot.
I will engage in rational debate with anyone, anywhere. I have no issues whatsoever in doing so with BBC people, some of whom I know and like. But my fundamental argument is that a State Broadcaster is an anachronistic oddity that leaches off the tax payer. Of course I am biased in my views, but so is the BBC. The difference is a/I admit it and b/ I do not charge 3.5bn to sustain it.
Hope you enjoy Torchwood, escapist fantasy seems apt for you.
Visitor
How smug. You pick on one comment - which you could easioly ignore - and use that as an excuse to continue to sidestep the rest of the criticism.
Patronising tosh, matey. Or does that offend you too ?
And that ladies and gentlemen is why the BBC should be closed up now, they really, really believe that they have the right not to pay attention to the licence payer.
All sorts to self justification but no evidence that hundreds of people are needed to cover a gig.
nrg
de haut en bas is the phrase, I think.
We plebs should tug our forelocks and stay silent in the presence of our betters. How dare we question the BBC panjandrums !
Assuming Parkinson's Law applies at the BBC, it will have taken a very short while to sign off the millions of pounds of our money that the unknown pop festival is costing. Who cares, there is £3.5 billion left, plenty more where that came from.
Sorry, the last few comments are infuriating.
I've said repeatedly that I'll be back tomorrow to deal with what I can.
Its a long job. You've made a lot of points. Can JohnA really not wait twelve hours?
There were two comments - one nonsensical one from an Anon and one abusive one from nrg that I couldn't let go.
Why SHOULD I ignore them? I'd treated both people fairly (Anon with a measure of disdain - which he deserved and nrg with respect - which I though he deserved)
David, exactly what grade do you think I'm at?
Do you imagine I can possibly answer every query about every aspect of the organisation. Of COURSE I can't.
My point stands. I did my best to answer nrg. I did it civilly. I even used HIS figures as a basis rather than trying to somehow conjour my own.
I can't honestly swear that 324 people for T in The Park is the right number.
I've told you what I can: The figure sounds about right in my reasonable experience. Its about right based on nrg's own comparison point.
I was moving onto the other points tomorrow.
What else do you want?
Ps. Torchwood spot on so far. About to do Ep5. No spoilers!
@David Vance
As a newcomer I cannot help but be impressed by your contributions....yet a few questions persist...
I come here not to praise the BBC but to bury it
Excellent start. If we take this to its logical conclusion, why allow anyone from the BBC to take part at all. Shouldn't they be six feet under? Metaphorically, at least....
If you feel unable to answer the many fair points raised by the many who comment here...
Killer point, Dave. (May I call you Dave?) By the time the Beeboid's dug out his technical manuals to explain how many riggers you need for a pop concert, we slam him with Question Time, then anti-Tory bias, Obama-love, global warming, and just as his head is reeling, we open the box marked Israel. Poor bastards never stand a chance.
I suggest it is because you cannot.
Indeed. See above. Though I do wonder how many people technically competent on pop music broadcasts are necessarily up to speed on Palin. Or Gaza. Still, no matter. Got' em by the nuts. Again!
my fundamental argument is that a State Broadcaster is an anachronistic oddity that leaches off the tax payer
Mais d'accord! But why don't we just call this Anachronistically-Funded Oddity and ignore all ths bias stuff. Fact is they could be as unbiased as God Almighty, but if they live off tax we're not listening. Right?
Hope you enjoy Torchwood, escapist fantasy seems apt for you.
The mot juste! As always! Probably gay, too.
So wishing I had Opinionateds ... balls!
Still laughing - thanks!
Bizarre!!
The socialist regime ruining Britain is being savaged across the board by a whole host of eminently experienced military commanders and opposition politicians who have served in the military.
None of this is being adequately reported by Labour/BBC who would prefer to give credence to the ramblings of an assortment of union convenors and polytechnic lecturers who infest this corrupt regime.
And our latest visitation here from the BBC would prefer to attempt to justify the grotesque overmanning and Spanish practices at the BBC than address the blatant bias in everyday output from Pravda.
The BBC: More akin to British Leyland than modern day journalism.
Stick to Torchwood, a fantasy world so favoured by the BBC.
And as if to prove Opinionated's point along comes TPO.
I'm limiting myself to what I can fairly answer.
I can give you my personal opinions on a whole bundle of stuff but it will mean bugger all.
I'm not defence correspondent. And I'm sorry for that. Not least because I'd be paid more if I was.
The original post was about what it takes to cover a major event.
I have some clue about that, so, against my better judgement, I attempted to provide some answers.
I was going to try some more tomorrow.
The possibility of me being arsed to do it is receeding rapidly.
Are you sure you're not just it this for the Lulz?
Lulz?
Jeez - I had to look that one up.
"Often used to denote laughter at someone who is the victim of a prank. Can be used as a noun — e.g. "for the lulz" ("for laughs"/"for the hell of it"/"for the Schadenfreude"). This variation is often used on chan image boards. According to a New York Times article about Internet trolling, "lulz means the joy of disrupting another's emotional equilibrium."[25] It is derived from the 4chan community.
5: Used more often similarly to an emoticon, at the end of a sentence, to denote something humorous."
You've just gone up in my estimation even if you are a beeboid.
David Vance: "I will engage in rational debate with anyone"
LOL, yeah right, I think you lost any rationality a long, long time ago.
The Visitor:
Thank you for your patience. You really do not deserve the vitriol and abuse given by some here - it degrades the site.
I am a great critic of the BBC as will be seen from my posts, but if these threads are to have any merit let us at least engage in a civil debate, unless our opponents step over that line first.
Thanks John
Fuck me, Torchwood episode 5 is HORRIBLE.
In a good way, but boy is it DARK.
The Visitor
One of the house rules we tryto observe is "No unnecessary swearing"
You clearly haven't seen the bit of Torchwood I just saw.
But fair point ... !
@TPO
Bizarre!!
Good start...
The socialist regime ruining Britain is being savaged across the board by a whole host of eminently experienced military commanders and opposition politicians who have served in the military.
Not sure we want Our Boys associated with savagery. But as it's in a good cause, what ho!
None of this is being adequately reported by Labour/BBC who would prefer to give credence to the ramblings of an assortment of union convenors and polytechnic lecturers who infest this corrupt regime.
A scandal. And you are right to raise it. Did no-one tell the BBC that polytechnics disappeared a few years ago?
And our latest visitation here from the BBC would prefer to attempt to justify the grotesque overmanning and Spanish practices at the BBC than address the blatant bias in everyday output from Pravda.
Slimy bastards! Just what kind of person ignores the military-savagery/polytechnic-unearthing agenda and wastes their breath - or even their typing fingers - on the trivial issue of the BBC covering a pop festival?
(David V, is this all right, because I fear that this might equally apply to you for targetting today's broadside on the same issue? Happy to back off if you think best...)
The BBC: More akin to British Leyland than modern day journalism.
Beep, beep!
Opinionated More Than Educated
Oh my a very apt name and vintage hillhunt if I may say so. Now there was a silly bunt if ever there was one.
The Visitor says: The figure sounds about right in my reasonable experience
Yes in the expereince of a licence payer gorged Beeboid parasite it probably takes 6 people and a trip to a luzury hotel and a gram of coke on expenses to change a light bulb.
John Stephens, point taken, but people are starting to become genuinely angry at the bias, inefficiency, decadence, and arrogance of the BBC. As the corporation has given up any attempt to mask its bias and is now engaging in overt propaganda (e.g. the protracted attack on Andy Coulson with smears and innuendos) while helping itself to the contents of our wallets people are going to become even angrier. The Charles Moore court case is another expression of this anger as are the many anti BBC videos on U tube, Grumpy Old Twat and elsewhere. I particularly recommend Generic Radio 4 comedian.
Any other organisation in the world seeing a hostile movement like this would take the problem seriously, try and engage with the critics of take some of the criticism on board. Not the BBC. That they do not speaks volumes as to their arrogance biased intentions.
Our friend The Visitor came here with the patronising attitude that if we behave ourselves then maybe, just maybe, the BBC might have a wee chat about our concerns amongst themselves. He sought to tell us why we were wrong and tell us that as we are ignorant we should not question how our money is spent.
Notice how at no time did he recognise that the BBC might have a duty to justify how public money is spent. I have enough experience to know that 230 people is way over the top for recording a run of the mill gig. I suspect that the BBC knows full well that most of the people were unnecessary freeloaders. If the BBC do not recognise it that, then there really is a big problem with their management and cost control. What other organisation feels no need to manage costs in a recession?
The maddening thing is that the BBC is too arrogant to even recognise that all these people have a complaint and simply pushed on down its cocaine and gold lined pathway to socialist utopia regardless.
BTW Visitor, Channel 4 also covers UK music festivals and I am sure if the BBC had used its publicly funded monopoly to push others out of the way MTV / TMF would also peick up the slack.
Has the BBC benchmarked staff and costs against C4 coverage?
nrg said.
A good point well made!.
Seems odd the scrots and trolls avoid other shall we say more provoking threads on this site i wonder why ??
mat
Visitor,
I'm curious, why do you come to a site that openly opposes the BBC - announce yourself as a Beeboid - and then expect to be treated with 'respect'?
Perhaps you could arrange membership for a few of us on the BBC internal boards and see what treatment we get.
Your indignation would make sense if BBC staff came here to do anything other than pointedly disagree with EVERY comment ever made.
What you don't seem to understand, is that a lot of people use this site to vent spleen at an institution that has no proper complaints process and will NOT listen. I for one object to BBC staff like yourself coming here and expecting to be treated as if you were some kind of allie.
You are not, you are the enemy. I want nothing more than to see the BBC wiped out and each and every one of it's employees on the dole. That would make me smile.
Now how am I expected to be civil to any employee of the BBC when this is my true feeling toward them?
Perhaps you should try to regard us as 'militants' and try to enforce understanding and dialogue with our open hostilities. I'm certain the BBC have special training days for such things. Get yourself on one.
I see the BBc worms are all poking their heads up --wonder if it is because their end might be nigh?
The fact remains that they can't intellectually justify the tax known as the licence fee, and are embarrased at the behaviour of their overpaid greedy executives.
Why can't you parasites get proper jobs like the rest of us?
@Ratass
why do you come to a site that openly opposes the BBC - announce yourself as a Beeboid - and then expect to be treated with 'respect'?
Couldn't agree more. I've long ago given up treating anyone with respect unless they agree with each of my specific opinions. To do otherwise would be to invite chaos.
Your indignation would make sense if BBC staff came here to do anything other than pointedly disagree with EVERY comment ever made.
The bastards
What you don't seem to understand, is that a lot of people use this site to vent spleen at an institution
Tell it like it is. They broadcast. We denounce it as bias. They say: "Why?" And we say: "Because we're venting spleen." QED!
...that has no proper complaints process and will NOT listen.
Indeed not. And when they say they sacked the Head of BBC One and forced out the boss of one of their suppliers over Crowngate, we say: "You have no proper complaints procedure." That'll teach them.
I for one object to BBC staff like yourself coming here and expecting to be treated as if you were some kind of allie.
Not sure what an allie is, but I absolutely don't want to see anyone from the BBC down our allie.
you are the enemy.
Yesss! Don't give us discourse. We want WAR!
I want nothing more than to see the BBC wiped out and each and every one of it's employees on the dole. That would make me smile.
Don't want to sound too touchy-feely, but have you tried therapy? Life can have its ups as well as its downs, and while there are laughs aplenty in mass redundancy, there are sunny sides to everyday life, too. The Reader's Digest is full of them.
Now how am I expected to be civil to any employee of the BBC when this is my true feeling toward them?
Spoken like a true civil person.
Perhaps you should try to regard us as 'militants' and try to enforce understanding and dialogue with our open hostilities. I'm certain the BBC have special training days for such things. Get yourself on one.
Killer line! Could you and David Vance organise a teach-in for the rest of us on hilarious pay-offs?
Words are weapons and yours are laser-guided. For sure.
Opinionated
Posts like yours only increase the anger against BBC arrogance.
There is NO proper complaints procedure over BBC programmes. They require an Internet comment to be made - which is not copied back to the complainer by way of acknowledgement. When a reply eventually arrives - by email - it is usually vacuous and defensive/dismissive, and the reply does not include any mechanism to challenge it. The email specifically states that any reply will be unread. To carry it further, one has to start again - weeks after the event.
Try looking, as a for-example, at the eBAY disputes procedure. Each step is logged, each response is set out in full.
................
The weekly Feedback programme on Radio 4 is a mockery - no matter how many complaints are made about any particular programme, there is always some BBC exec. to defend it, to justify the original BBC decisions. Virtually NEVER any mea culpa.
..........
BBC complaints procedures are designed to head off criticisms - to drop them down the memory hole. Only when there is an almighty public scandal - like FRAUD by the BBC on a large scale - is any action taken.
Opiniated
Just a couple of easy questions;
Please justify a tax levied on Television and Radio which wouldn't be allowed in any other market place?
Why are licence payers paying to fill the coffers of BBC executives and their pensions?
Why does the BBC exhibit such poor journalism; ie editorialising every story rather than supplying us with facts + allowing us to come to our own views?
Why should we pay for the inumerable freebies BBC staff claim for?
Why not admit you will eventually have to get money by subscription and start making financial provisions, sacking the vast amounts of dead wood and paying your executives sensible amounts?
The BBC is an anachronisnm in these straightened times and will have to adapt to survive.
I suggest you look for alternative employment
@JohnA
There is NO proper complaints procedure over BBC programmes.
Excellent point. Let's share our anger at the arrogance of the following:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ecu/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/appeals/editorial_appeal_findings.html
They require an Internet comment to be made
The scum.
And when they say here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
that you can also phone or send by post, they're obviously lying.
Opinionated
The BBC procedure steers you to make comments by email - just look at it. And the email procedure is not fit for purpose. Further - people have complained about the form of the procedure and the BBC has done damn-all about it. That is - designing a memory hole was part of the purpose - the design, deliberate.
Phoning does not work either, I have found.
And out of 3 letters I have sent in the past, 2 were not replied to.
No commercial organisation could get away with treating its customers like this and failing to have adequate complaints procedures.
John A is correct.
I have received either standard "We can't please everyone" letters or had no response at all.
The BBC doesn't give a toss about the licence fee payer, because we are forced to pay anyway..
Opinionated,
What a desperately unfunny public schoolboy twat. The true face of BBC staff. All you achieve by coming here is to double people's resolve to get rid of you and your kind.
Posting a link does of course prove the effectiveness of the BBC complaints system just as much as my posting this link gives a definitive profile of your good self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Still, let's all look on the bright side. The BBC staffers must be shitting blue lights about the security of their jobs, hence why they feel the need to come here and post their infantile comebacks.
Opinionated
what a total wanker you really are!!
Glad I stopped paying the Beeb tax anyway ;)
subsidising obnoxius tosspots is not something I enjoy
I suggest the members don't feed the troll anymore....
@Ratass
Am sitting three blocks away from a big BBC office building and the glow from the sewers is a sight to behold.
Blue. I kid you not.
Victory is almost ours. Allies together!
Ratass shagged: "hence why they feel the need to come here and post their infantile comebacks."
From the man who used "desperately unfunny public schoolboy twat" in the same post.
Still, at least Gary, with his "what a total wanker you really are", showed who the real comeback king is. What a wordsmith.
could we possibly get back to the point of this blog, and stop this aimless abuse.
The BEEB bloggers seem to be under the impression that they are a cut above the rest of us intellectually, so let's prove them wrong by structured peritent arguements.
Perhaps once they realise the futility of their parasitic existence they will cease to waste our time!
Oh bugger got me at it now!!
Oh boy.
Can open ... worms EVERYWHERE.
Here's the thing:
You think (in general) the BBC Complaints procedure pays no attention.
Fair enough - I have no idea.
I can tell you what I do: I answer every complaint that crosses my desk within two days and log it.
That's my benchmark.
For the record I agree with the complainant between a third and half the time on average.
I can't answer for other bits of the organisation.
But if you want BBC people paying attention to your points, why hurl abuse when someone comes on and tries to pay attention to your points?
Especially when they're trying to tackle them one by one and in some depth.
I didn't even disagree with all your points. I didn't try and pretend we are some paragon of efficiency.
And there was going to be more agreement. (There still can be if you'd like to actually play the ball rather than the man).
We're back where we started:
You CAN choose the route of agreeing with each other loudly in the dark. That's fine.
But if you really DON'T want dialogue, for pity's sake don't go bleating that you're not getting it!
You just don't get it do you?
We don't want you to answer my complaints more efficiently, tick boxes in record time, stand on your head for hours or even God forbid--show less bias.
We just don't want to pay for a product we don't want.
Get it?
frankos
I understand that that's a widely held view here. And that's fine.
I didn't (and don't) think its universal - because SO many posts and comments here explicitly demand answers or complain they're not given.
nrg, for example, initially appeared to be after answers and engagement. I still have no idea what provoked the change of tone from him/her.
And, like I say, a LOT of comments on this site complain about the non responsiveness of the BBC and its employees.
And, frankoes you've just said yourself you've written to us to complain.
Why do that if you don't actually want an answer?
I don't get it ...
My complaint was that you continued to exist, and to explain why I should pay the licence fee!
I don't want SKY so I don't pay for it, so why pay for a BBC that could and should be subscription only?.
You must understand that you are not an essential part of Britain like the NHS, MOD etc and your privatisation is of no consequence to most of us.
Now do you understand?
Nothing personal but you are just an added expense in an already overburdened and overtaxed Britain.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
It was interesting to see the reaction to someone who uses a few facts and reasonable arguments. Funny how the debate changed after your explanation of the resources needed to cover T in the Park?
How the BBC is financed - indeed, whether it is financed at all - isn't really an issue we can expect a single BBC employee to address, other than in a personal capacity.
We can, however, reasonably ask questions about issues like whether the T in the Park event was overmanned or, as I tried to yesterday, whether it should even have been covered at all, so soon after Crustyfest.
The BBC, like all organisations, tends to suffer mission creep. It's not to be wondered at. Everyone always wants to do things bigger and better, so where, 50 years ago, even a couple of cameras at a football match would have semeed A Big Deal, today a cat stuck up a tree gets a satellite truck, all to itself.
You can't blame emloyees for this.
You can, however, blame the managers who say - 'sure, take two trucks, do it in HD and hire 100 riggers to help you on your way. Oh, by the way, we've hired some kid for £100,00 a year and she is going to present it.'
You can't expect functionaries (sorry Visitor) to object to this. It's their job and they want to do it better all the time.
You can, however, hold managers and politicians to account for letting it happen.
Scott M, if you feel the need to defend an obnoxious moron like Opinionated, then expect to be tarred with the same brush.
Your hit and run postings on this blog prove what a sycophantic little coward you are anyway, so who cares a toss about your mock disgust?
I'll be ignoring all your postings too from now on, so don't bother to respond.
Ratass Shagged: I am mortally wounded by your words, and cannot possibly hope to compete with such a high level of debate.
However, if you are going to accuse others of being obnoxious, dare I suggest that a little bit of self-awareness wouldn't go amiss?
Ratass
I have yet to see a constructive post by Scott M. Pure troll.
"Sky attacks planned BBC Open staffing level"
[Extract]
"The BBC has again been forced to justify its use of licence fee payers' money after broadcast rival Sky said it could cover the Open golf championships with half the number of staff."
('the herald.co.uk')
Scott slobbered
"All they obviously need is to send one person with a dictaphone"
if you have a phone,you could be the dick they use
congrats to "Scott" and "opinionated but thick"
pompous self agrandissement and BBC self opinionated elitism made flesh and dwelling among us
lets all tug our forelocks and bow down before their liberal elitist superiority LOL
@Anonymous
pompous self agrandissement and BBC self opinionated elitism made flesh and dwelling among us
I share everyone's suspicion and hostility towards the Beeboid menace, but I doubt it's wise to suggest they're capable of David Icke-style transubstantiation. Look where that got poor David... mocked as a conspiracy theorist!
Am always happy to defer to my betters, but I draw the line at bowing down before anyone. My knees hurt too much.
Who is this Lol that we have to bow down before, anyway?
if you don't know what LOL means,have a look on the internets ;)
@Anonymous
have a look on the internets
Thanks for the tip. Now that I know it's the Loyal Orange Lodge, I'm happy to oblige. On my knees as I type.
you are a legendary wit
or at least half of one
you need to get off your knees
people will think your blowing your boyfriend
Laugh Out Loud --what I did when I heard about the BBC pay
Post a Comment