Although I really hate to say this on the week that the BBC bosses will announce job losses in news and current affairs (why don’t they merge BBC3 and BBC4 instead of cutting the very heart of what the BBC should be about?), there was yet another example of massive over-staffing today.
When Chris Huhne launched his Lib Dem leadership bid, our cameraman took the trouble to count the number of BBC people present.
There were TWELVE of them
Sky and ITN had three each.
Nuff said.
Via Guido.
Yes, ITV showed the BBC mob at the Libdem bash. 3 camera crews, 4 correspondents.
Just as NuLab measures success by input, ie how much they spend, so the BBC measures success by how many people they send on a job. I remember a Beeb prog about their coverage of the Gulf War. Their proudest boast was that they sent over 400 people to the area. Not sure how many Sky sent, a mere fraction I suspect, and their coverage was superior in many ways.
As I mentioned beofre after 9/11 Sky covered New York with just Emma Hurd who did a brilliant job. The BBC sent bloody hundreds of people out there. Why? They still did a crap job.
The BBC have certainly done a good job at creating the impression that their budget has been eviscerated, with all these proposals to get rid of visible programmes and channels. But the fact is that they’ve been virtually guaranteed over £3 billion a year until the end of 2017 (okay, the current license fee settlement only goes for another 6 years, but the charter goes until 2017).
So that’s about £27 billion (in today’s money). 27 freakin’ BILLION quid.
Haversack
Well lets see what happens in six years time. But yes, this sort of guaranteed income is a real godsend.
But as part of the settlement the Government insisted we make 3% efficiency savings every year. Indeed accountants from the National Audit Office will be sent in to make sure we do it.
I believe we also have to pay for the accountants too, though I don’t know how much.
So twenty billion guaranteed for the next 6 years — 3.24 billion x 6 is almost 20 billion, plus that will grow, so it’s at least 20 billion.
Twenty billion quid in six years! Shout this from the rooftops — twenty billion quid for the next six years! Twenty billion quid for the next six years! A veritable jacuzzi of cash — no, a warehouse of jacuzzis all full of cash.
And in return for this mind-boggling amount of money we get Two Cans of Lager, some other equally disappointing comedies, a mediocre and biased news service, endless dross on BBC1, hardly any decent sport coverage, and the chance to watch a lot of middle-aged men travelling around the world chatting to camera. Yes, that’s very good value for money. Has so much public money ever been wasted on so much inessential dross?
So I say: Twenty billion quid over six years! What a magnificent scam!
Julie Etchingham interviewed someone fron the BBC who made the stunning point that the BBC need more people there because they have so many radio stations etc. Unfortunately Julia didn’t ask the obvious: why can’t you take the audio of a BBC TV report and put it on the radio? Why do we need five reporters to go along and say exactly the same thing?