DO
How do you know they've had to pay extra for someone to come in? The staff presenters will be on a salary, with a certain number of hours to work each year to earn that salary. How they're rota-ed on to shifts is really none of our business. For example, Tim may well have been rota-ed in to do some filming for some reports, or one of the numerous BBC World programmes, or maybe even just to do work in the newsroom away from the cameras.
A good reason for having a presenter on location is that the presenter can then deal with the newsrooms - appearing on World, News Channel & Nationals, while the reporter(s) are left to actually follow the story, appearing in-vision in a portion of the reports as their availability allows. If you make the reporters appear on every outlet whenever the Editors want an update, you take them away from actually reporting, so you need to send more reporters out.
Unless you're involved and/or following the comms between the newsroom / editors / location, it's impossible for you to know exactly whats happening and what people are doing, so you can't be expected to see the reason behind every decision.
I'd agree in a way, but Ben Brown has covered Matthew on the 11am shift, meaning Tim and whoever else has been brought in to do the evening shift. If Jane had been left on her own, there wouldn't be a need to pay another presenter to come in and cover.
How do you know they've had to pay extra for someone to come in? The staff presenters will be on a salary, with a certain number of hours to work each year to earn that salary. How they're rota-ed on to shifts is really none of our business. For example, Tim may well have been rota-ed in to do some filming for some reports, or one of the numerous BBC World programmes, or maybe even just to do work in the newsroom away from the cameras.
To be honest, I don't know why they send presenters out on location when they already have reporters there. I know it might be to add some gravitas (ie. Jon Sopel in Paris) and probably to make it more interesting to watch, but I really just don't see the point. They already have Ross Hawkins at the Leveson Inquiry, why do they feel the need to send Matthew out as well, when he and other presenters are just as capable of presenting it from the nice, warm studio. They should have kept Matthew in the studio, saving the need and cost for Tim to come in and cover the evening shift. I think it was reported a while back that they will be starting to scale down the number of presenters reporting on location, this can only be a good thing in my opinion.
*Rant over*
*Rant over*
A good reason for having a presenter on location is that the presenter can then deal with the newsrooms - appearing on World, News Channel & Nationals, while the reporter(s) are left to actually follow the story, appearing in-vision in a portion of the reports as their availability allows. If you make the reporters appear on every outlet whenever the Editors want an update, you take them away from actually reporting, so you need to send more reporters out.
Unless you're involved and/or following the comms between the newsroom / editors / location, it's impossible for you to know exactly whats happening and what people are doing, so you can't be expected to see the reason behind every decision.
I notice that someone's put the wrong daytime backdrop up again today (the totally grey one without the blue on). Why not just delete the old one so the problem doesn't keep occuring.