91Èȱ¬

I believe having a studio within the heart of the action, filled with presenters/pundits/etc who are actually there experiencing it is a very worth while effort as it allows these people who fill our screen to understand and gain an insight in to what is actually going on at the event - something that the viewer simply can not gain from watching the box in their own front room. This insight results in more informed and credible presentation of both facts and opinions - which surely is something we are all after from such a trustworthy source as the 91Èȱ¬.

If you want left wing opinions formed on a whim and based on nothing in particular then watch Channel 4.

The usual criticism you'd expect - the 91Èȱ¬ expected to deliver everything and spend nothing.

For me the 91Èȱ¬ is the Olympics and that is money well spent. Pretty much everything else the 91Èȱ¬ does could be covered elsewhere, including most of it's sporting portfolio, but the Olympics is an event on such a scale I really don't see how anyone else could cover it in the same way and bring it to as many people - all for free (well, as part of the licence fee!).

The 91Èȱ¬s coverage of major events has always (from my experience) been far superior to any other broadcaster that I've seen.

here comes the but...
During the Olympics it did seem a waste of money having numerous reporters for both radio and tv over in Beijing when you already all the experts and pundits there anyway.
I certainly don't believe that they offered anything extra to anyones enjoyment of the games, nor do I think that they gave any kind of insight that wasn't already offered by the experts.

In terms of quality of coverage, the 91Èȱ¬ deserves 10/10
As for value for money though, I'd have to drop a mark or two for the reason I've stated.

Can we safely assume, then, that the 91Èȱ¬'s World Cup studio this summer will be on location in one of the South African host cities and not in London as was for the Japan/Korea edition 8 years ago?

does this mean the bbc is almost allowing others to compete on a level field?

heaven forbid

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Sending over 400 staff on a jolly to Beijing and to Glastonbury does not constitute value for money.

no its imperative 2mp

how would we survive without seeing jake humphreys

My concern with the way most tv and radio stations report on both news and sport is that a lot of the time, we do not always need to see the reporter at the scene in question.

For example, a statement from the US Government concerning terrorism does not necessitate a 91Èȱ¬ News crew jetting out to Washington to do a quick piece with the White House in the background.

I am happy for the commentators and the technical staff to be present at Sporting events, however, pundits can do their piece in a nice comfy studio in the UK. They do not need purpose built studios with a nice ‘relevant’ back drop. In my opinion there is far too much punditry on all sport programs. I want to see the action, I don’t need some ex-pro’s telling me what I just watched with my own eyes.

On another note, I also found it incredible that the 91Èȱ¬ had a camera crew in Haiti BEFORE a lot of the rescue teams, who were stuck in the Dominican Republic waiting for flights. Priorities all wrong there methinks.

The fact the 91Èȱ¬ had more people reporting the Olympics than the number of competitors in Team GB, tells you there's a problem.

The coverage of all the events was indeed excellent, being that it was all provided by the Chinese host broadcaster. And when they're spending the millions of quid, you'd expect the rest of it to be excellent too.

But what I really don't understand is why there need to be separate 91Èȱ¬ teams (reporter, editor, producer etc) for all the reporting of these big events. You get different teams for Radio 4 news, Radio 5 news, 91Èȱ¬1, 91Èȱ¬2, 1pm news, 10pm news. Surely it only needs to be reported once.

All told, I cannot possibly believe that the number of people being sent out there was necessary, and I'm sure that the 91Èȱ¬ can still produce excellent coverage, but at a significantly lower price than it currently does.

I do think lumping it in with music events is rather unfair on 91Èȱ¬ Sport really.

400 people covering 30 sports over 2 weeks at the Olympics I can understand.

400 people covering a few stages over one weekend at Glastonbury I can't.

@Brekkie: You clearley have never worked at Glastonbury, or even been there by the sounds of things.

For the sake of accuracy, there were 271 staff involved with Glastonbry - and 491 at the Beijing Olynpics.

See page 22 of gthe report for details.

What is also intersting is the number of hours coverage etc accross the various 'platforms'

Roger, I saw on another 91Èȱ¬ blog a comment that the 91Èȱ¬ Trust has refused permission to use the Parliament Channel for Winter Olympic coverage during the parliamentary recess.

Can you confirm this and let us know who took the decision.

Roger, can you tell us why you believe that sending Vassos Alexander to the Australian Open for 5live was a good use of licence payers' money.

For those who don't know, this is the guy who pops up on the breakfast show and reads the sports news, "Villa beat Blackburn last night .... on the back page of the Express it says Robinho is going to Santos ...." etc.

He wasn't in Melbourne to commentate on any tennis matches himself, he wasn't even there to grab interviews for 5live with Andy Murray or any of the other players. He was only there to tell listeners what had happened in the world of sport yesterday evening and overnight, and what was on the back pages of the British newspapers. Yet rather than do it from a studio in Britain he was sitting in the stands of the Rod Laver Arena, to the sound of tennis balls being knocked back & forth in the background.

Once in a while he would tell us what was on the main sports headline in The Melbourne Age, but in the era of the internet that's something that anybody with a web browser can find out, there's no need to go to Australia.

I'm not saying for a second that he didn't do an excellent job of it, what I can't understand is why it was neccessary to fly him to Melbourne and back, and put him up in a hotel or apartment for a fortnight, all courtesy of the licence fee. Which part of this job could not be done just as well from a studio in Britain?

I've always thought the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage of the big events, particularly the Olympics, to be one of the finest things it does. The quality and extent of the output it far superior to anything I've seen at home or abroad. For all of NBC's money and thousands of staff, they faced the bizarre situation of not being able to watch coverage of, for instance, Usain Bolt's 100m, live on TV. Instead, they had to wait for the delayed highlights in primetime. Can you imagine that happening in the UK?!

The comments about 400+ staff sent to Beijing really gets on my wick. I don't know anything about sports coverage or TV production - but I guess providing literal 24/7 coverage, of dozens of sports, at dozens of venues, over several weeks is an astonishingly complex operation. Besides, what really matters is how much money is spent - not how many people were used. Looking at the budgets published in the NAO report, the per-hour cost for great coverage of the biggest sporting spectacle on the planet must be tiny compared to virtually everything else on our screens.

On a point of rigour, Mr Mosey, you state clearly that the NAO ratified that the 91Èȱ¬ operated within its agreed budgets. So operationally it was fine.

Did the NAO also comment on whether the budgets were appropriate, appropriate for good times but too much for austere ones, or the like?

I'm neutral on this, just interested to know whether that is part of the NAO's remit to comment or not.

I am all for major landmarks at major events, the drabness of ITVs coverage which is always stuido based at a world cup confirms the 91Èȱ¬s approach is best. However, one thing that does baffle me is the amount of reporters the 91Èȱ¬ has at a football match on a Saturday afternoon. There are 3 men in the studio watching the game for Final Score, then another reporter who they go to when there is an incident, and the commentator for Match of The Day. Add the radio coverage to this too and it does seem like overkill...surely at least one less person could be used?

The 91Èȱ¬ have historically frequently saved money by having UK anchors. When satellite time was highly expensive this may have made sense. But it looks cheap and silly now. I recall when overseas athletics was routinely linked by Des Lynam in London for the 91Èȱ¬, when ITV always did a better job by sending Jim Rosenthal to the stadium. The 91Èȱ¬ has moved on since then. A desperate need for cost cutting forced coverage of the 2007 Worlds into the London studio, but the effect was stultifying. Hopefully this won't be repeated.

Roger, correct me if I'm wrong, but the 400 people taken to Beijing includes those who were producing coverage for BOB (Beijing Olympic Broadcaster)? From previous blogs, I remember you mentioning that the 91Èȱ¬ was responsible for producing the World Feed from certain venues (Rowing/Canoe & Kayak Flatwater) and as such these people are included in the "400" number.

Maybe giving this detail will explain why a large number of people were taken to Beijing.

What are the coverage plans for the Commonwealth Games in Delhi?

Ridiculous so called journalists making a fuss again as the 91Èȱ¬ send 74 people to cover the Winter Olympics, complaining it's more than the 52 athletes.

What nonsense - unlike the British team the 91Èȱ¬ are involved in every event, and I think a team of 74 and the reports £250,000 spent on travel and accommodation for them is a very modest amount for the excellent coverage so far - and the more details the story gives about how you are covering the event (just two film crews, two roving reporters), the more any rational person not trying to spin a story can see it's excellent value for money.

I think the 91Èȱ¬ offers amazing value for money. I read the posted link the the German magazine and find it strange that the 91Èȱ¬ still comes in for incredible criticism despite producing, in Beijing, more than three times the amount of coverage with around 200 less staff than its German license fee funded equivalents. It seems to me that we are blessed with an brilliant public broadcaster that we seem to love criticising!

Personally I love the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage and think it represents excellent value for money. I watched some of the coverage of these Winter Olympics on Eurosport the other day and it was attrocious. It actually took away a bit of the enjoyment for me. I've never had that with teh 91Èȱ¬ coverage so well done and keep up the excellent work.

Roger,
The problem as I see it is that 91Èȱ¬ Sports (and perhaps you) are coming in for flak because of the overall 91Èȱ¬ situation in the present economic climate. E.g. your friends over in the 91Èȱ¬ news department seem to still enjoy making some MP squirm about expenses and they seem to forget that it is also tax-payers money that pays for the 91Èȱ¬ on-screen "talent". If I'm supposed to get upset that Shaun Woodward MP, Secretary for NI claimed £43 pounds, then how boiling mad should I be when I see what the DG Mark Thompson earns and his expenses and shouldn't I absolutely combust instantaneously when I find out that a auto-cue operative (aka newsreader) earns £92k a year, £28k MORE than an MP?

Newspapers only survive if people buy them. So, their number 1...2 and 3 objective is to sell them. They will write/print anything that will sell. Since the 91Èȱ¬ is not in that position, perhaps you shouldn't co-operate with them so closely. You should stop reporting what's on the front pages pf the newspapers and you should stop inviting newspaper journalists to your news programmes because the 91Èȱ¬ is not operating at their level? No, don't worry, I won't hold my breath because it won't happen. At least, try not to become the broadcast version of the tabloids?

The fact of the matter is that in the present economic climate, the 91Èȱ¬ needs to be extremely careful about its expenditure generally.

Must say though reports the 91Èȱ¬ spend £400 a week to drive two MOTD pundits from Liverpool to London is ridiculous - if they want to work on MOTD, it's up to them to travel to work, not us to pay for it. It's one thing paying for London based pundits to travel to grounds to cover live matches, but completely unacceptable for viewers to pay for well paid pundits to travel from home to work - especially when that home is a couple of hundred miles away!

Roger,
There is a stretch of road somewhere in Holland, I think, where there are no road markings, no traffic lights or signs and no speed cameras. And yet, when drivers approach this stretch, they end up driving very carefully. That's how free speech should be treated. Yes, the media can criticise anyone or any place. But the media should behave responsibly and ask meaningful and thoughtful questions. Not this scatter-gun approach which is extremely damaging. That has been the case with the British media for a very long time.
It's unfortunate that you mention 2 of my most hated 91Èȱ¬ programmes: Today and Newsnight. All I need to say is that it was on Today where Andrew Gilligan got himself and the some senior 91Èȱ¬ people into trouble. And as for Newsnight, when you ask the same question 14 times, not because there was an important point to make, but rather because the next item has been delayed, that tells you everything. And this admission comes AFTER you've won an award for asking the same question 14 times. Is there anything more fraudulent than that?
I accept that up to a point, some people work for the 91Èȱ¬ at a significant discount to the market. But the problem is at the top end. Your top-earning people like J. Paxman, the Dimblebys, J. Humphrys et. al have established a name for themselves. E.g. if you let go of J. Paxman, he can go off and earn a lot more at other broadcasters as well money from his books and good luck to him too. For his package, you can hire/train 2 or 3 others to present Newsnight and University Challenge. It is not a demanding job and sure it won't be an easy start. But that's where J.Paxman started. J. Paxman should be grateful to the 91Èȱ¬ for giving him the profile that he has. But the time has come (and gone!) to say, "Good Bye". Who knows, I might even watch Newsnight again!

Yes, of course audiences are glad that they get commercial-free excellent sports events for the licence fee and the 91Èȱ¬ has to compete for them. But that's money well spent.

The money spent on sport is much better value for money than the duplication we see in 91Èȱ¬ News and money spent on things like EastEnders, which according to reports today costs £1m a week.

Roger just to pick up on the Commonwealth Games point #24.

Are the 91Èȱ¬ wanting to broadcast the games, its rather strnage that no agreement is in place with the event only 8 months away?

Thanks for the swift reply Roger. Hopefully once the Winter Olympics are out of the way the apprioprate people will be giving the matter higher priority.

I just hope the security fears over sport in India have eased by then.

Looking at the dates the start will clash with the Ryder cup which is a shame and the likes of John Inverdale, Mark Pougatch and Hazel Irvine might have to miss the opening weekend if the rights are agreed.