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.
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.