Do the BBC actually NEED 6,000 staff just for the NEWS?

On recently reading about around 450 staff were to be culled, I was shocked to learn that they have around 6,000 staff JUST FOR THE NEWS, Why on earth do they need this many, and what the hell do they actually do?
 
On recently reading about around 450 staff were to be culled, I was shocked to learn that they have around 6,000 staff JUST FOR THE NEWS, Why on earth do they need this many, and what the hell do they actually do?
Apparently they do, yes. Even with that many, they can’t write an unbiased story. Maybe if they had a few more, they could actually produce some impartial content.
 
Three reporters and some old bag presenting, 5,996 people to work out out to spin it make Corbyn look competent and how to demean the UK somehow.
 

Fake Sheikh

War Hero
Gary Lineker only on £1.7 Million & Alan Shearer on £500k pay them when they work only.
BBC Commercial only part that makes good money but now BritBox online more revenue.
 
On recently reading about around 450 staff were to be culled, I was shocked to learn that they have around 6,000 staff JUST FOR THE NEWS, Why on earth do they need this many, and what the hell do they actually do?
Obvious, really. They exist to annoy muppets who believe that trustworthy access to facts gets in the way of people agreeing with their particular prejudices (left or right). How dare they not agree with you! It can't be because you're mistaken, it must be because they're hopelessly biased!

There are also profiteers who believe that the news is best delivered from behind a paywall by News International (other commercial organisations available) according to the beliefs and profits of those nice Rothermere and Murdoch families.

And finally, there are the hard of thinking, who believe that 5,500 journalists, researchers, broadcast facilities, and outside broadcast capabilities based and operating across the whole of the country is wasteful; and that they should just have a couple of people sat in London who reprint the press releases of the various political parties and corporations. Sorry, the correct political parties and corporations.
 
No...close thread and move on.
 
Chop 90% of those and buy the news off AP & Reuters
 
If they decriminalise not having a licence, the DD gets cancelled straight after.
 
Gary Lineker only on £1.7 Million & Alan Shearer on £500k pay them when they work only.
BBC Commercial only part that makes good money but now BritBox online more revenue.
I don't like Lineker, and think he should keep his politics to himself. But fair play to the bloke, he said that the licence fee should be voluntary.

 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It depends.

I've worked for organisations that have regional bureaux/reporters and stringers.

The former were employed to keep an eye on what's happening in a given geographical area - so, for instance, defence developments in the Far East. That would often take up a good part of the working week for an individual or even a small team, depending on the subject matter, the size of their patch and how much is going on.

The latter are occasional contributors. They get paid piece rate (essentially, they ring up when they think they've got a story and then get the yes/no on whether to run with it) but are accredited as belonging to the organisation. They're subcontractors, in effect. But they bump up the numbers.

There is a lot to be said for having resource in-house and on tap - "Send a camera crew and reporter to 'X'." @bigeye can probably comment better on the dynamics and costs of this.

Where the BBC has started to get up my nose is its whole cultural appropriation/empathy and identity politics nonsense - where you need a black person to report on black issues, for instance, or the person reporting from the Indian Subcontinent must be a person from the area.

This stems from the patronising and untrue idea that only a person of a similar ethnicity to those being reported upon can truly empathise with the story at hand. It's complete bollocks, of course. It also means that we end up getting people reporting from some parts of the world who're near-unintelligible (although to point that out probably makes me a gammon). That also bumps up the numbers, but - I'd suggest - wholly needlessly.
 
Last edited:

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Obvious, really. They exist to annoy muppets who believe that trustworthy access to facts gets in the way of people agreeing with their particular prejudices (left or right). How dare they not agree with you! It can't be because you're mistaken, it must be because they're hopelessly biased!

There are also profiteers who believe that the news is best delivered from behind a paywall by News International (other commercial organisations available) according to the beliefs and profits of those nice Rothermere and Murdoch families.

And finally, there are the hard of thinking, who believe that 5,500 journalists, researchers, broadcast facilities, and outside broadcast capabilities based and operating across the whole of the country is wasteful; and that they should just have a couple of people sat in London who reprint the press releases of the various political parties and corporations. Sorry, the correct political parties and corporations.
The only muppet around here is you.

Why don't you pause from your knee jerk ranting and consider the view of that well-known, right wing xenophobe, Andrew Marr:

"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."
 
Our local BBC station last night.
Male and female in the studio.Two reporters out and about covering local news.Some bint for the weather. Several ( I imagine ) backroom staff putting it all together, plus sound,lights make up, call handlers, social media handlers....
Multiply by dozens of regional newsrooms ....
Let’s call it 3000 people.Just what do the others do?
 

Yokel

LE
Does the number just include national TV news, or does it include radio and online? Does it also include local news - how many regions are there, and how many counties have news staff? Does it include things like the World Service?

It does sound a lot, but is there any breakdown? I am unable to believe the BBC have 6000 staff in London working on national news.
 
Does the number just include national TV news, or does it include radio and online? Does it also include local news - how many regions are there, and how many counties have news staff? Does it include things like the World Service?

It does sound a lot, but is there any breakdown? I am unable to believe the BBC have 6000 staff in London working on national news.
Our local BBC station last night.
Male and female in the studio.Two reporters out and about covering local news.Some bint for the weather. Several ( I imagine ) backroom staff putting it all together, plus sound,lights make up, call handlers, social media handlers....
Multiply by dozens of regional newsrooms ....
Let’s call it 3000 people.Just what do the others do?
1700 of them are overseas, so that’s 4300 in the UK.

 
This stems from the patronising and untrue idea that only a person of a similar ethnicity to those being reported upon can truly empathise with the story at hand.
How do you explain Lice Douchebag then? Now there's a sanctimonious, preachy waste of skin if ever there was one.
 
Just remember they don't just report the news, their role is to provide an opinion and tell us what to think
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top