Why does the BBC feel it necessary to send 55 employees to cover this performance?
A complete culling of their management seems to be the only thing which will ensure they join the real world.
The sooner someone gets a grip of economic realities at the BBC the better.
Author: coldwaterjohn
CWJ travelled extensively with his family, having worked in eleven countries over thirty years. A keen photographer, holding a Private Pilot's Licence, he focuses mainly on landscape and aerial imagery. Having worked in the Middle East extensively he follows developments in that region with particular interest, and views with growing concern, the radicalisation flowing from Islamic fundamentalism, and the intolerance for opposing views, stemming from it.
View all posts by coldwaterjohn
Boadicea's Chariot 
Is it up to 55 now? More money (your money) than sense.
I watched the first rescuer go down and the first miner come up, I was channel hopping to get different perspectives, I by far preferred the CNN and SKY presentations.
OK it is excellent news that all 33 have survived, and brilliant that 4 of them are now on the surface, but once you have seen one chilliean emerge from a hole in the ground, you can pretty much say you have seen all there is to see.
Listening to some talking head regurgitate the same treacly drivel every 5 minutes like a stuck record is just a waste of time and money. I did not realise they had sent 55 personnel to provide the most boring outside broadcast since the national paint drying championships.
CWJ you are spot on, someone at the Beeb needs to be culled for this outrageous expenditure.
Evan Davis tried to instil some excitement into the event by reminding us that five of the men have MISTRESSES as well as wives. Giggle, giggle, nudge nudge. Could I suggest the BBC sends Evan to the scene, puts him down the hole when the men are up, and fill it in. Nudge, nudge.
You must all remember that there are vast swathes of the population of the world who are glued to their tellies, not to watch the rescue but to watch something go badly wrong, this is not very far removed from the bread and circuses of ancient Rome. As right minded people we must all hope and pray that these guys are all rescued and reunited with their loved ones but buried deep within our id is the frisson of thought that something untoward may happen.
Why does everyone slow down on a motorway when a smash happens on the other carriagway, just to rubberneck, gawk and cluck their tounges as they speed away having observed whatever carnage has ensued, “not much blood was there Doris, lot of blue lights though”.
Am I being unfair? Think on the mantra of the news editor, ‘Good news is bad news’.
OMG – I don’t argue that it is not newsworthy, and I share your hope that they are all rescued safely. But if ITV can cover it with nine staff, why should the BBC need 55? I can see a Matt cartoon coming on, with the BBC HQ as backdrop, “Hands up everyone who would like to go to Chile, on the taxpayer?”
While I find the numbers of people being sent to watch this performance, and am appalled when I read of the obscene salaries paid to some of those working for the BBC, I’d like to point out that the BBC does not run entirely on the licences paid by the citizens of the UK, poor or otherwise.
The BBC makes some excellent programmes which are sold all around the world and help to fund still more excellent programmes. But for the BBC it wouldn’t really be worth my while to own a TV.
By all means knock some aspects of the BBC – but do give credit where credit is due.
Boa, they make some excellent programmes, many of which we watch. Panorama has done some excellent work on exposing all sorts of corruption amongst our politicians, for instance, as of course has the Daily Telegraph.
But that does not justify such wasteful expenditure on coverage of an event like this.
Apparently there are more than a thousand journalists at the minehead…does that make any sense?
There was a time when the media would pool news sources – one would take on an assignment and agree to share reportage.
A complete cull would apparently not be the answer to the haemorrhage of money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8057696/BBCs-Mark-Byford-made-redundant.html
OZ
There will be several dozen more which could be excised from the monstrously overstaffed and overpaid organization it has become, and the sooner they get to it, the better.
I put on the TV this morning (VERY rare occurrence in this house) to watch BBC News 24, or what ever it is called, to find out what progress had been made.
They were showing a very relieved minor talking and talking and talking, without stopping, with a translator over the top…. it was as though he had verbal (and incontinent) diarrhoea after being holed up for so long. Understandable: he obviously needed to talk, but really, shouldn’t it have been edited? In months to come surely he’ll be so embarrassed.
Before condemning the BBC for wasting money, I’d like to know what all these BBC bods were there for. You can’t expect a crew making a TV documentary to also present to camera for live coverage for instance. I believe a documentary *is* in the making, and you can bet your bottom dollar it will be a good one.
I read it was 25. The Beeb sells its coverage around the world, both TV and radio. No doubt there is room for cuts and svaings but the cult of BBC-bashing is rather childish.
Sky News had three people in Chile, increased to nine in total as the miners surfaced.
The BBC’s track record in extravagance in covering “major” events, would not permit their survival in the Private sector.
World Cup: 292 staff
Wimbledon: 185 staff (down from 358 two years earlier!)
Glastonbury: 407 staff
Beijing Olympics:437 staff
I suppose compared with these numbers, 25 or 55 would seem like small beer.
You may find it educational to read the National Audit Office Reports on the BBC’s casual approach to spending.
Evening CWJ, I’m surprised that they could find 25 (or 55) staffers, I’d have thought that most would be holidaying on the sub-continent reporting on the Commonwealth Games 😉
cwj, good evening.
I don’t think that you are very far wrong.
My own experience of the coverage two nights ago was Radio Five Live and, in particular, ‘Up All night’ from 1am to 5 am, hosted by a fine broadcaster, Rod Sharp, who, to be fair, went to a good school, aka Perth Academy.
Over those four hours, he had three BBC staffers and two local broadcasters (presumably paid for their effort) onstream. For most of their input, they did nothing except describe the pictures they could see on the screens in front of them.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was deeply moved by the rescue and by the reaction of the entire Chilean nation to the disaster from start to finish.
Still agree with you about Auntie Beeb’s cavalier attitude to the licence payers’ money which funds all her nonsense.
John – this, as you will have gathered, wasn’t ever about not covering the story, or doubting that it had all the suspense needed to keep people hooked on progress, (although I admit, I have not watched any coverage of their emergence) and share the general relief that 33 humans haven’t been entombed alive. I am simply concerned that the BBC has lost all sense of proportion in covering these events. That they can reduce the numbers covering Wimbledon from 358 to 185 over two years, with no diminution in coverage quality, speaks volumes…