How many presenters do they need?

I like the variety. Giving many presenters work rather than make one mega-star is the right thing to do especially in these times.

There are too many in most programmes.

During the proms presentations on TV there is one presenter, two people to chat in the intervals and - utterly bizarrely - Gareth Malone talking about "issues" in the current classical music scene - he just stands there and says about 3 sentences and that is it. I wonder what that costs!!?? And what the point is?

I really like the 'team of presenters' set up. You get many views that way. Beechgrove is a great example of this, there are a mixed bag of presenters who not only all have their own area of expertise, but when they are together they have fun and it's very entertaining.

The flower shows like Hampton Court would be a bit dry in my opinion if we just had one person walking us round pointing at things and pontificating.

Also, the TV licence fee is £159. For that we get 12 months of TV across many channels, a first class 24 hour news service, access to a website packed with information and, when watching television we don't have to suffer constant interruption from adverts.

I went to lunch with two friends the other day. What amounted to a snack, soft drinks and coffees for three people cost £45 and was gone in an hour. To my mind that makes the licence fee seem a good deal.

It seems a very fashionable pass time to knock the BBC, but if we think about it it's been there for us since we were born providing education, entertainment and news. It's not perfect, but is there anything better?

I like the variety too. These programmes are the TV equivalent of glossy features magazines: pieces on outdoor living, no dig allotments, roses, boundary-pushing conceptual gardens etc etc. It would be dull to pick up a magazine and discover every piece written by the same person in the one style.

If you mean why are the anchor hosts alternating between Joe Swift and Rachel de Thame, Arit Anderson and Jo Whiley? Why not? Three women anchoring the presentation of a major flower show in TV terrain (pun intended) often dominated by men. That's progress.

Nope MoorlandMooner and they should leave Channel 4 alone as well as their evening news programme is quite superior imo of course ?

Another Channel 4 supporter here. Yes. Leave it alone.

Think it is perfect with several presenters.

I’m sorry, MoorlandMoonerbut in the south-east of England £45 for three people to have a light lunch, i.e. £15 ahead, is really not expensive. Maybe you are just luckier than I am wherever it is you live

Agree, Granmarderby10
Re your mega-star comment, Ro60, does anybody understand why Claudia Winkleman earns what she does?

@Annahan, that was @MoorlandMooner’s point! The tv licence only costs as much as 10 trips to the cafe. Not that much.

Granmarderby10

Nope MoorlandMooner and they should leave Channel 4 alone as well as their evening news programme is quite superior imo of course ?

I agree with you, the 7PM Channel 4 news is the best. The BBC seems to be filled with (cheaper) 20 year old "correspondents" and Sky news is so repetitive, showing 20 second loops of video again and again.

I can understand it with sports in that they wheel in former sportspeople who are knowledgeable about tjat particular sport.

But on the news I do wonder sometimes as bringing in someone else doesn't really add to it, and you wonder why they have bothered to send ceramic and presenter to interview someone who basically has nothing to say

MoorlandMooner

Also, the TV licence fee is £159. For that we get 12 months of TV across many channels, a first class 24 hour news service, access to a website packed with information and, when watching television we don't have to suffer constant interruption from adverts.

I went to lunch with two friends the other day. What amounted to a snack, soft drinks and coffees for three people cost £45 and was gone in an hour. To my mind that makes the licence fee seem a good deal.

It seems a very fashionable pass time to knock the BBC, but if we think about it it's been there for us since we were born providing education, entertainment and news. It's not perfect, but is there anything better?

Well said

What gets me is when a reporter interviews another reporter. Why?

we also get the radio as part of the license

why is Jo Whiley presenting though, does she garden now?

I understand the others are gardeners

I resent having to sit through several BBC presenters interviewing-each other!?!? What is that all about? Who cares what a TV presenter thinks about a given situation anyone? Have different reporters for each story If they must but don't then bring their mates in to have what seems like a private conversation that we all have to sit and watch......!? I don't actually CARE what reporters think!

helgawills

Agree, Granmarderby10
Re your mega-star comment, Ro60, does anybody understand why Claudia Winkleman earns what she does?

I think it might be so she can afford all the anti dandruff shampoo she uses.??
Truthfully, I don’t know. I didn’t mind her on Strictly but for the rest . . .

JaneJudge

we also get the radio as part of the license

why is Jo Whiley presenting though, does she garden now?

I understand the others are gardeners

I think Jo Whiley has become a keen gardener JaneJudge, in an amateur rather than professional way. I'm always pleased to see her on gardening shows for her smile, enthusiasm and lovely dresses (shallow I know).

I'd forgotten the BBC radio channels...yes, of course. Where would I be without Radio 4!?

MoorlandMooner

Also, the TV licence fee is £159. For that we get 12 months of TV across many channels, a first class 24 hour news service, access to a website packed with information and, when watching television we don't have to suffer constant interruption from adverts.

I went to lunch with two friends the other day. What amounted to a snack, soft drinks and coffees for three people cost £45 and was gone in an hour. To my mind that makes the licence fee seem a good deal.

It seems a very fashionable pass time to knock the BBC, but if we think about it it's been there for us since we were born providing education, entertainment and news. It's not perfect, but is there anything better?

And the BBC pay Gary Lineker £1.36 million

I'm glad she brightens your day good old JO

I like Gary Lineker he is a hero of my era and a good presenter IMO. but I don't have a TV so don't pay the licence.
I think BBC bashing is popular because of the way they have treated many presenters.
I have not listened to Radio2 since Simon Mayo left - even though I missed Jo and Ken and Steve. And I was a lifelong Radio2 listener thanks to my mum.
It has been wrecked and that is one of the reasons BBC bashing is popular.
I watch Gardner's World at work and Britain in Bloom.
I am glad Rachel de Thame is well and back on I like her.
A lot of chaps at our gardening society hate the viewers video part of gardner's world now but I love it. I love Monty too.

The BBC with its ridiculously highly paid presenters and news readers and its woke, biased agenda horrifies me these days. It has moved far away from its mission statement of ‘inform, educate and entertain’. The leftist points of view expressed by many of its ‘stars’ goes completely against the neutrality an obligatory licence fee should demand and which is stated in its charter. There are far too many presenters and hangers on with their noses in the trough. The BBC is no longer the kindly ‘Auntie’ of yore but an unaccountable institution run by the privileged and paid for by many who struggle to meet the cost. A Relic. Reform or defund!

So I take it you won't be wanting a Blue Peter badge then Amalegra.