The BBC and Glastonbury
Discussion
Hmm, article starts off saying the BBC have secured 200 hotel rooms, then quote a local hoteliers guestimation of 400 rooms. Next paragraph complains about need for 400 staff to attend.
Article concludes with BBC saying the sent 274 last year and hope to send less this year.
Conclusion - Daily Mail is full of s
t
The BBC always have great coverage of music events and sporting events. I'd rather they spent the money on this and the F1 than a lot of the other crap they show.
Article concludes with BBC saying the sent 274 last year and hope to send less this year.
Conclusion - Daily Mail is full of s
tThe BBC always have great coverage of music events and sporting events. I'd rather they spent the money on this and the F1 than a lot of the other crap they show.
Another reason I won't be paying my licence fee on renewal. I used to be able to qualify my dislike of the BBC by saying at least the news was good, but even that's s
t now. In fact, they now provide the worst coverage of all the networks. "Hey, someone's having a press conference or giving a speech about some non event that nobody gives a s
t about. How about instead of reporting the conclusoin, we cover it live and not only that, show up three hours early and cover that bit live too!" "Yeah, yeah, and also, if we accidentally find we're giving air time to a valid news story we'll interrupt it with live coverage of some f
king Scottish
losing at tennis again! Brilliant!"
t now. In fact, they now provide the worst coverage of all the networks. "Hey, someone's having a press conference or giving a speech about some non event that nobody gives a s
t about. How about instead of reporting the conclusoin, we cover it live and not only that, show up three hours early and cover that bit live too!" "Yeah, yeah, and also, if we accidentally find we're giving air time to a valid news story we'll interrupt it with live coverage of some f
king Scottish
losing at tennis again! Brilliant!"carmonk said:
Another reason I won't be paying my licence fee on renewal. I used to be able to qualify my dislike of the BBC by saying at least the news was good, but even that's s
t now. In fact, they now provide the worst coverage of all the networks. "Hey, someone's having a press conference or giving a speech about some non event that nobody gives a s
t about. How about instead of reporting the conclusoin, we cover it live and not only that, show up three hours early and cover that bit live too!" "Yeah, yeah, and also, if we accidentally find we're giving air time to a valid news story we'll interrupt it with live coverage of some f
king Scottish
losing at tennis again! Brilliant!"
Rare that such a reasoned and balanced argument is made.
t now. In fact, they now provide the worst coverage of all the networks. "Hey, someone's having a press conference or giving a speech about some non event that nobody gives a s
t about. How about instead of reporting the conclusoin, we cover it live and not only that, show up three hours early and cover that bit live too!" "Yeah, yeah, and also, if we accidentally find we're giving air time to a valid news story we'll interrupt it with live coverage of some f
king Scottish
losing at tennis again! Brilliant!"DWP said:
carmonk said:
Another reason I won't be paying my licence fee on renewal. I used to be able to qualify my dislike of the BBC by saying at least the news was good, but even that's s
t now. In fact, they now provide the worst coverage of all the networks. "Hey, someone's having a press conference or giving a speech about some non event that nobody gives a s
t about. How about instead of reporting the conclusoin, we cover it live and not only that, show up three hours early and cover that bit live too!" "Yeah, yeah, and also, if we accidentally find we're giving air time to a valid news story we'll interrupt it with live coverage of some f
king Scottish
losing at tennis again! Brilliant!"
Rare that such a reasoned and balanced argument is made.
t now. In fact, they now provide the worst coverage of all the networks. "Hey, someone's having a press conference or giving a speech about some non event that nobody gives a s
t about. How about instead of reporting the conclusoin, we cover it live and not only that, show up three hours early and cover that bit live too!" "Yeah, yeah, and also, if we accidentally find we're giving air time to a valid news story we'll interrupt it with live coverage of some f
king Scottish
losing at tennis again! Brilliant!"
carmonk said:
Another reason I won't be paying my licence fee on renewal. I used to be able to qualify my dislike of the BBC by saying at least the news was good, but even that's s
t now. In fact, they now provide the worst coverage of all the networks.
Have you seen "Grumpy old Men"? Are you in it?
t now. In fact, they now provide the worst coverage of all the networks.I'm sure the Beeb make a small fortune selling their Glasto coverage around the world.
Muse have a great live DVD which mainly comprises, wait for it wait for it, their Glastonbury headline performance as recorded by the BBC. And that's just one small example.
Mr. Potato Head said:
Enormous live OB at the countries' largest music festival, 5 music stages to cover, temporary studio base, lots of other places of interest.
Watched and enjoyed by millions.
Yeah only needs 20 people
Indeed. From what I know of it, even the smallest OB requires huge amounts to give the quality that we come to expect.Watched and enjoyed by millions.
Yeah only needs 20 people

To cover a site of the size of Glastonbury, to drive it there, to set it up, to maintain it, to produce the content, to present it, to pack it down, well, then I guess you could probably say 280 people is about right.
After all, we'd only be b
hing if we didn't get decent coverage for our pretty paltry license fee (of which most of us will happily spend away on a nice meal of an evening).Jeez. 'Spending my license fee' my arse.
fathomfive said:
How many does it take to cover F1?
Lots and lots. And it costs a lot. They also receive a feed for the track stuff, so you might want to factor that in when concluding whether or not it represents good or bad value - and how that value compares to the coverage of Glastonbury over BBC1 and 2, 3, red button, internet, BBC Radios 1, 2 and 7, plus all the repeats that may appear on other BBC outputs.This story appears in the Mail (and other media) every year. Personally I think the BBC coverage is extraordinary. No doubt it could be made worse by reducing the budget. I'd be surprised if it could be much improved following the same route.
mikR said:
I am in Australia for work and the tv here is diabolical. I never thought I would say this but I really mis the BBC.
I watched the Australian coverage of the Australian Grand Prix last year. Remarkably dreadfull. Truly appalli ng. And brief. And peppered with adverts.I have a family member living in Australia and he cannot complain enough about how bad their tv is. In my experience and those of friends abroad (in various countries) tv in the UK is very good. Not that it will stop the great unwashed constantly banging on about how rubbish it is.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff



