Post by Teddy Bear on Apr 3, 2014 18:47:33 GMT
Two things to highlight with this story.
The first is the obvious extravagance of justifying sending 272 staff to cover the World Cup in Brazil. This contrasts with ITV, who are providing similar coverage but only sending 120 staff. Makes the case for privatisation even more. The BBC justifies the £12 million cost to the licence fee payer by stating it is 'less than the cost of a pint of milk' for each licence fee payer, as if the cost is inconsequential. Also that it is less that the 295 staff they sent to South African World Cup in 2010. Apparently it is to include a documentary with David Beckham in the Rain Forest.
What on earth Beckham has to do with rain forests shows how dumbed down it's likely to be, but will no doubt pursue the global warming, or whatever they are calling it this year, as the real agenda. 'Bending it (the truth) like Beckham'.
Which brings me to the next point.
Given the BBC pushing the environment concern on the rest of us, how is it they themselves have such a hypocritical response to it with their own carbon footprint?
Seems to me they should certainly not be sending any more staff to Brazil than ITV, and forget about a stupid documentary with Beckham.
The first is the obvious extravagance of justifying sending 272 staff to cover the World Cup in Brazil. This contrasts with ITV, who are providing similar coverage but only sending 120 staff. Makes the case for privatisation even more. The BBC justifies the £12 million cost to the licence fee payer by stating it is 'less than the cost of a pint of milk' for each licence fee payer, as if the cost is inconsequential. Also that it is less that the 295 staff they sent to South African World Cup in 2010. Apparently it is to include a documentary with David Beckham in the Rain Forest.
What on earth Beckham has to do with rain forests shows how dumbed down it's likely to be, but will no doubt pursue the global warming, or whatever they are calling it this year, as the real agenda. 'Bending it (the truth) like Beckham'.
Which brings me to the next point.
Given the BBC pushing the environment concern on the rest of us, how is it they themselves have such a hypocritical response to it with their own carbon footprint?
Seems to me they should certainly not be sending any more staff to Brazil than ITV, and forget about a stupid documentary with Beckham.
BBC taking 272 staff to World Cup in Brazil - which is the equivalent of 25 football teams and DOUBLE the number of ITV workers
By Martin Robinson and Charles Sale
The BBC is sending 272 staff to the World Cup in Brazil this summer - enough to field almost 25 football teams.
Licence-fee payers will spend £12million funding the trip to cover the month-long tournament in South America starting on June 12.
The bill will include five-star treatment for pundits Gary Lineker, 50, Alan Shearer, 43, Alan Hansen, 58, and Robbie Savage, 39.
Corporation bosses have justified the spending by saying they plan to make Brazil 2014 the first '24/7' World Cup and say it will cost viewers and listeners 'less than a pint of milk' each.
There will be 12 separate commentary teams covering more than 50 matches for TV and more than 60 for radio as well as shows including a documentary about David Beckham travelling to the Amazon rainforest.
BBC and ITV split World Cup coverage down the middle yet the licence-fee funded Corporation are sending more than double the number of personnel to Brazil than their commercial rivals.
Bosses claim their bloated presence of 272 at the tournament is less than the excessive 295 they sent to South Africa for the 2010 World Cup but will be delivering up to 50 per cent more TV output.
Yet the BBC army compares with ITV making do with a 120-strong task force in South America, with most of those freelance operators.
BBC director of sport Barbara Slater tried to justify the cost to taxpayers in a lengthy website blog claiming: ‘Our aspiration is to make Brazil 2014 the first 24/7 World Cup, which will appeal to all age groups, is available across all devices at any time of the day or night. We will be producing all this for less than the cost of a pint of milk for each viewer, listener or website user.’
Ms Slater added: ‘Throughout the planning process, all parts of the BBC have been acutely aware of striking a balance between editorial ambition and value for money'.
‘Our aspiration is to make Brazil 2014 the first 24/7 World Cup, which will appeal to all age groups, is available across all devices at any time of the day or night. We will be producing all this for less than the cost of a pint of milk for each viewer, listener or website user.’
But critics have accused the BBC of sending staff on a 'wasteful jolly'.
Jonathan Isaby, of the Taxpayers’ Alliance said:‘Auntie continues to send an army of staff to cover big sporting events while other broadcasters manage to with far fewer.
‘The BBC needs to stop wasting so much of the licence fee on this extravaganza and cut back on the number of additional jollies that come with the coverage.
‘Viewers want to watch the World Cup, but they shouldn’t have to pay for so many extra staff to cover the games.’
- Cost to licence-payers will be £12million BBC says 'less than a pint of milk'
- Stars will be flown around Brazil covering 60 games in 12 cities
- Critics say it is another 'jolly' but BBC says it has reduced number of staff
- ITV will be sending 120 staff to South America for tournament
By Martin Robinson and Charles Sale
The BBC is sending 272 staff to the World Cup in Brazil this summer - enough to field almost 25 football teams.
Licence-fee payers will spend £12million funding the trip to cover the month-long tournament in South America starting on June 12.
The bill will include five-star treatment for pundits Gary Lineker, 50, Alan Shearer, 43, Alan Hansen, 58, and Robbie Savage, 39.
Corporation bosses have justified the spending by saying they plan to make Brazil 2014 the first '24/7' World Cup and say it will cost viewers and listeners 'less than a pint of milk' each.
There will be 12 separate commentary teams covering more than 50 matches for TV and more than 60 for radio as well as shows including a documentary about David Beckham travelling to the Amazon rainforest.
BBC and ITV split World Cup coverage down the middle yet the licence-fee funded Corporation are sending more than double the number of personnel to Brazil than their commercial rivals.
Bosses claim their bloated presence of 272 at the tournament is less than the excessive 295 they sent to South Africa for the 2010 World Cup but will be delivering up to 50 per cent more TV output.
Yet the BBC army compares with ITV making do with a 120-strong task force in South America, with most of those freelance operators.
BBC director of sport Barbara Slater tried to justify the cost to taxpayers in a lengthy website blog claiming: ‘Our aspiration is to make Brazil 2014 the first 24/7 World Cup, which will appeal to all age groups, is available across all devices at any time of the day or night. We will be producing all this for less than the cost of a pint of milk for each viewer, listener or website user.’
Ms Slater added: ‘Throughout the planning process, all parts of the BBC have been acutely aware of striking a balance between editorial ambition and value for money'.
‘Our aspiration is to make Brazil 2014 the first 24/7 World Cup, which will appeal to all age groups, is available across all devices at any time of the day or night. We will be producing all this for less than the cost of a pint of milk for each viewer, listener or website user.’
But critics have accused the BBC of sending staff on a 'wasteful jolly'.
Jonathan Isaby, of the Taxpayers’ Alliance said:‘Auntie continues to send an army of staff to cover big sporting events while other broadcasters manage to with far fewer.
‘The BBC needs to stop wasting so much of the licence fee on this extravaganza and cut back on the number of additional jollies that come with the coverage.
‘Viewers want to watch the World Cup, but they shouldn’t have to pay for so many extra staff to cover the games.’