Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 24, 2008 16:50:21 GMT
The BBC wants us to believe they are short of money as a result of not getting as much as they wanted from the licence fee. So much so they are charging 25p for a splaxh of milk in the staff canteens. But they don;t seem to have a problem sending 175 staff to America to cover the upcoming US elections. Thats over 4 times more than Sky are sending (40). They claim it's to give quality coverage. I can already imagine the pro-Democrat diet of biased reporting we are likely to be served.
US election: BBC criticised for sending 175 staff to America
The BBC has been criticised for wasting licence-payers' money for the amount of staff they will send to the US for the presidential elections.
By Chris Irvine
Last Updated: 6:05PM BST 23 Oct 2008
They have come under scrutiny after it was reported 175 staff would be across the Atlantic to cover the elections - 125 deployed from the UK, on top of the 50 BBC staff already based in the US.
Teams from Radio Five Live, News 24, Radio 4's Today and Newsnight, on top of the World Service and BBC America, will be covering the vote between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain - presenters Huw Edwards and Jeremy Paxman are expected to be among the numbers travelling.
The corporation however claims the amount of staff is needed to provide high-quality coverage of the election, despite other news channels sending a fraction of the staff.
ITV News is sending up to 20 staff while Sky News said its team of 40 was "one of the biggest overseas operations" it has staged.
Similar criticism was raised during the Beijing Olympics when the BBC sent 437 employees - outnumbering the amount of British athletes competing.
Matthew Elliott, of the Tax-Payers Alliance, said: "The BBC constantly claim to be strapped for cash, so how can they afford such a massive junket?
"Of course they should cover the US election, but no other broadcaster is sending hundreds of people across to the States.
"They should be more careful with licence fee payers' money and cut out this unnecessary spending."
John Beyer, of Mediawatch-UK, said: "In comparison with the numbers that ITV and Sky are sending, it does seem excessive.
"I wonder why the staff already there couldn't cover the election adequately. They've been managing to cover the run-up to the election very adequately for the British audience."
A BBC spokesman said the 175 staff would provide 150 hours of coverage across both radio and TV.
"The US presidential election is a globally important story and the outcome will have an impact on the UK and the wider world.
"Audiences would expect the BBC to apply high standards to our coverage.
"Almost all staff will be working for more than one area of output, and the deployment has been heavily co-ordinated and scrutinised to ensure efficiency and value for money."
The BBC has been criticised for wasting licence-payers' money for the amount of staff they will send to the US for the presidential elections.
By Chris Irvine
Last Updated: 6:05PM BST 23 Oct 2008
They have come under scrutiny after it was reported 175 staff would be across the Atlantic to cover the elections - 125 deployed from the UK, on top of the 50 BBC staff already based in the US.
Teams from Radio Five Live, News 24, Radio 4's Today and Newsnight, on top of the World Service and BBC America, will be covering the vote between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain - presenters Huw Edwards and Jeremy Paxman are expected to be among the numbers travelling.
The corporation however claims the amount of staff is needed to provide high-quality coverage of the election, despite other news channels sending a fraction of the staff.
ITV News is sending up to 20 staff while Sky News said its team of 40 was "one of the biggest overseas operations" it has staged.
Similar criticism was raised during the Beijing Olympics when the BBC sent 437 employees - outnumbering the amount of British athletes competing.
Matthew Elliott, of the Tax-Payers Alliance, said: "The BBC constantly claim to be strapped for cash, so how can they afford such a massive junket?
"Of course they should cover the US election, but no other broadcaster is sending hundreds of people across to the States.
"They should be more careful with licence fee payers' money and cut out this unnecessary spending."
John Beyer, of Mediawatch-UK, said: "In comparison with the numbers that ITV and Sky are sending, it does seem excessive.
"I wonder why the staff already there couldn't cover the election adequately. They've been managing to cover the run-up to the election very adequately for the British audience."
A BBC spokesman said the 175 staff would provide 150 hours of coverage across both radio and TV.
"The US presidential election is a globally important story and the outcome will have an impact on the UK and the wider world.
"Audiences would expect the BBC to apply high standards to our coverage.
"Almost all staff will be working for more than one area of output, and the deployment has been heavily co-ordinated and scrutinised to ensure efficiency and value for money."