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.
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 ?