On the day the BBC announced cuts and job losses, even the Prime Minister's mild-mannered and quietly-spoken press spokesman, Mike Ellam, couldn't resist a little dig at the number of the corporation's senior correspondents attending the EU summit in Lisbon.

At a briefing about Gordon Brown's so-called "red lines" in the controversial new EU treaty, Mr Ellam was asked for the Prime Minister's view on the BBC's announcement about job cuts.

"I could address that to the..." he said mischievously, pointing to each of the BBC journalists in front of him in the UK briefing room in the Lisbon Media Centre.

For the record, representing the BBC at the No 10 briefing were:

* Political Editor Nick Robinson

* News 24 Chief Political Correspondent James Landale

* Newsnight Political Correspondent David Grossman

* Radio 5 Live Political Correspondent John Pienaar

* Europe Editor Mark Mardell

Most, if not all, have their own producer at the summit and there is a team of BBC journalists here from Brussels as well as Westminster.

Incidentally, Sky News, ITN, Channel Four and Five News, each has just one correspondent at the summit.

Mr Ellam said, diplomatically, that the BBC cuts were a matter for its governors and licence payers, before adding, perhaps ominously: "They are entitled to value for money in the same way that taxpayers are."

Quite.

Comments

[Ian,Lancashire 19 Oct 2007 21:24:45]

There are without doubt several high-ranking air-heads at the BBC who deserve to be kicked out.
Shame it came too late for "Sir" John Birt to get what he was due. The culture of empty-headed PC management he presided over laid the foundations for many of the current problems.
Tony Blair's chief "blue-sky thinker" based on a heap of management speak claptrap tarted up with jargon to sound intelligent.
Let's hope the cuts are handled wisely and not used to cut superior programmes to divert money to get more cheap crap for BBC's 6 to 10 to show on digital TV.

[The Morning Post 19 Oct 2007 11:15:33]

Peter Fife

Pardon me for saying so but the second paragraph of your latest offering on this thread describes New Labour to a tee!

[Peter, Fife 19 Oct 2007 09:34:24]

Defence of the current BBC set up falls into some categories (not exhaustive):
Resistance to change
Fear that managerial pyramids will be reduced.
Fear of managers of departments who are cut that their position will become untenable.
Fear that the cuts will affect the numbers of seats on the gravy train.
Fear that the cuts will actually be an individual’s seat on the gravy train.
Fears that BBC employees associated celebrity life style will go.
Fear that they will have to compete in the big bad world not merely exist.

The BBC have got to realise that they are not the temple that British population once worshiped; the BBC has been exposed for deceiving the public, self interest, wasteful with public funds, worshiping at the altar of celebrity and defending the indefensible by merely closing ranks, ‘we do not see a problem’.

Why when a major story breaks in one of the regions, (region, noun, a place outside of London) does the BBC feel the need to ship a London reporter to the region to do the piece to camera is it because London-centric managers at the BBC think that these strange people with strange accents will not be understood by London audiences?

One certainty is that the ‘managers’ who will make the decisions on where the axe will fall will ensure their own positions face no change or at worst only minimal cosmetic change to permit them to claim that the cuts are fair and even handed.

The BBC, modelled as it is on the Civil Service need only to look to that monster to witness the tide of change; resistance to change will result in those who finance the BBC to call for further change.

A clear warning is available to the NUJ, call strikes at your peril, the people are not with you, they will be less than enamoured with a reduction in service merely to preserve the status quo; strike will only cause more embarrassing questionable activities at the BBC to be aired publicly, the only result will be an ever downward spiral with further calls for cuts in staff, budgets and obviously the license fee.

[Richard, Devon 18 Oct 2007 23:46:23]

It's great that you're raising this issue on this blog - a scoop that some of us who've worked in the area have known about. I mentioned in response to Glen about an occasion I was at the Old Bailey with 14 BBC reporters to everyone else's one or two.

What really annoys me is that you get The Six (6 O Clock news) competing with The Ten (10 O Clock news) or the One ... or with Newsnight. That sort of lavish waste of the public's money is outrageous.

[The Morning Post 18 Oct 2007 22:15:34]

Maybe the BBC have taken a leaf out of the governments book over the past ten years of tax and waste! If we condemn it for spending tax payers money irresponsibly, we canot turn a blind eye to Gordons own record in that regard! Yes the taxpayer is entitled to value for money but since when did any Labour government provide that? This government should practice what it preaches! Too many BBC reporters. Too many New Labour public service workers for instance!

[Bernard from Horsham 18 Oct 2007 20:51:15]

Clearly the prime Minister can see..
Yeah right...., the man who has introduced more quangos than can be counted, the cost of which exceeds the BBC's budget x N.

Typical Gordo, Do as I say , not what I do. If the Govt were to save all the wastage in the economy, I doubt anyone would have to pay any tax whatsoever. Yes that's right.. NO TAX !

[Rae 18 Oct 2007 20:15:23]

There seems to be too many from the BBC in Lisbon for what is not even the top story on the bulletins. It is my judgement that there are a lot less people worried about referendums than is made out. Labour will do right by the country, I have no doubt. You have no need to worry!

[Craig 18 Oct 2007 20:12:42]

All this nonsense about the EU Treaty and referendums. The truth is that it is not near to being the lead story on any of the major news bulletins. There are far more important issues to consider.

[Khalid 18 Oct 2007 19:49:44]

Now if ever there has been something original come out of the BBCs "Shed Seven" then it has to be the trimming of many a department from within, whilst further such cost savings can be made to taxpayers' pockets(as well as those licenced) by way of regenerating or even reviewing its commercial deal with Capita, who for some reason or the other, seems to assume that as a contractor, it too can decide what is or is not in the best interest of the public, as oopose to its own commercial gain.

[Richard Patient, London 18 Oct 2007 18:41:21]

Er....

You mention, incidentally:

"Sky News, ITN, Channel Four and Five News, each has just one correspondent at the summit."

Surely Sky News and Five News are from the same broadcasting organisation. ITN (which I assume you mean ITV) and Channel Four news are also from the same broadcasting organisation.

[Brian Christley in Abergele 18 Oct 2007 18:34:27]

The reason the BBC has suffered yet another damaging blow was not due to a misjudgement of one of their senior controllers it is the direct result of their present addiction for trailers. Pouring licence-payers money into independent production companies to cut-and-paste bits of programmes that have already cost a fortune to create is, for a public service broadcaster, a total waste of money as it does not improve their programmes one iota. The BBC already has the Radio Times and free programme publicity printed by the press. How much of our money is wasted on these counterproductive trailers we may never know – but as prime time evening televisions is now filled with repeats, such as the Vicar of Dibley and Silent Witness, that have already been repeated on other channels we can only assume quite a lot. Value for money and the pursuit of excellence is more important than a few extra bums on seats.

[Brian Christley in Abergele 18 Oct 2007 18:31:28]

Why do we allow ourselves to be conned? A number of producers on both sides of the Atlantic justify using foul language in their film and TV dramas as emulating real life, yet the more innovative producers of many of the best, most exciting and realistic dramas (like 24, Heroes & ER) never allow such language to be used. Foul language may be common place between luvvies but as the vast majority of public don’t use and many never come across such language, there is no reason why they should be subjected to it. And as for the regulator Ofcom reactions, we can only assume that such language is common place in their offices or do they only employ out of work luvvies. The BBC programmes that include needless bad language are now numerous, but let just start with the last ‘Murphy’s Law’.

[John Charlton 18 Oct 2007 17:49:39]

Has everyone just woken up to the effects of New Labours 10 years of waste?

What about all those parasitic NHS managers, Quango dudes, auditors etc. they must be under review as well.

Great!

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 18 Oct 2007 16:42:03]

I always find it tragic that the people who manage these big organisations, and are fully responsible for the demise that they find themselves in, are the ones that normally survive, and if they had been doing their jobs as efficiently as the people that they employ, then there would be absolutely no need for redundancies.

[michael rye 18 Oct 2007 16:25:35]

I wrote to the Chairman of the BBC about 4 years ago to complain about the number of reporters and the duplication- for instance as well as the one now before us, we have numerous examples of Regional reporters covering the same story carried in the National News. When Regional people can very well report on events in their area for the National network, why do we see London based reporters also sent?
I also pointed out that they spend a fortune on commentators for sports events who could very well provide the news reports.

The answer I got then was simply " that is what our viewers want" Since when? And then we are told the BBC cannot afford live football after 2007 and we have had no live cricket for years.

At long last reality appears to have hit home at the BBC

[Peter, Fife 18 Oct 2007 16:18:41]

Typical BBC departmental duplication, or in this case departmental penta-plication (sic) each with their own expense account and each with their own public financed transport; I note there is no detail available of how many other camera men, sound men, technicians and hangers-on were out of your view; BBC is a huge out of control gravy train which requires departmental coordinators such that reduced assets can be fully employed rather than each department having their own, often underused toys.

Clearly the Prime Minister and journalist like yourself see what is behind the camera; gross embarrassment for the DG