The BBc and Michael Jackson

[Von Boy]

The good old "auntie" BBC... a colleague of mine flew the LA rounte yesterday morning... and in business class was 6 BBC "people" plus 3 in first class.

Typical of BBC they send out the team, to cover the deveolping news re Jacko and also to stay out there until after the funeral......

Sky news are working via the american networks and using their own reporters they had already covering the USA...

Oh well its only tax payers money....

[Von Boy]

He also mentioned, chatting with them that 5 Live will be sending out a team to cover for radio....

Anyone for a tax payers freebee on the west coast??

[mrchapel]

But its different when they do it as opposed to when politicians do it for some reason.
At least you can vote a politician out of office. The licence is just legalised extortion

[tommy dickfingers]

this seems to be indemic of the public sector

[Sam Slater]

I don't get what the problem is. The BBC are doing their job in sending a team out to gather independent news, which is what they're paid to do. Why should I pay my licence fee and then get second-hand coverage that some American network is 'selling on'?

Surely if everyone just took news off everyone else then we'd never have independent and alternative views.

Since Sky are saving money by not sending their own people over there then why have I had a letter from them just this morning saying my subscription's going up again? And to top it off I get 20 mins-worth of ads every fucking hour.

The beauty of advertising, eh? Dixons puts ?10 extra on that tv I'm buying off them to help cover their advertising costs. I then pay Sky to watch the adverts I've already paid for (in part)! We're all being charged twice for the fucking ads!

[JonnyHungwell]

I hate the BBC and their TV tax.

[Peter]

Sam Slater wrote:

> I don't get what the problem is. The BBC are doing their job in
> sending a team out to gather independent news, which is what
> they're paid to do. Why should I pay my licence fee and then
> get second-hand coverage that some American network is 'selling
> on'?
>

Its the overmanning, outdated practices and free spending of public money that's the problem.

For the Beijing olympics, the BBc sent more that 400 staff to cover the event. We only sent 300ish competitors. Not all were necassary, Huw Edwards presented the news from Beijing. Nothing he couldn't have done from the London studio.

Local TV news coverage is always done by the BBC using a cameraman and a sound man, yet is done equally successfully by a single person in the commercial sector for at least 20 years.

The simplest job has to be done by an engineer in the studio, if something fails, even though its user-changeable and safe to do so, you have to call in someone to do it.

In the scenario described by the OP, was there really a *need* to send three people first class?

If its private sector money, spend it ow the hell you like, if its public sector, then you have to be accountable.

[Sam Slater]

Hey, I'm all for streamlining and limiting waste, but I feel that the BBC should, whenever possible, acquire their own news and footage.

[one eyed jack]

Are you implying that Michael jacksons death is not real news???

I think the BBC have a vested interest in keeping potential viewers informed of which MJ fans are legion.

It al makes good business sense to me.

[Dick Moby]

Michael Jacksons death WAS news but he's gone now. Do we really need all the conjecture about how he MAY have died.
I just don't get all the grief by people who have never even met him.
Grieve for friends and relatives but not for a once very talented artist who you don't even know.