The coverage of Glastonbury performed well for the BBC, with about one in three of the UK population watching or listening to at least something from the farm over the weekend.
Oddly, given how concerned the Mail was about how much money was being spent covering the event, it seems to have not found the room to publish this story.
I had missed another of the Mail's carping pieces last weekend, by the way. Having had it pointed out to them that the numbers of staff they'd complained about produced a shedload of content, the Mail decided to complain about, erm, how much coverage there was:
What ever happened to editing? BBC's Glastonbury coverage to last twice as long as the festival itselfSo, apparently, if there are many, many simultaneous live performances, you only count the length of time in which they take place, but you compare it with broadcasting hours where you add together the total length of time they take.
The BBC's Glastonbury festival coverage will last for twice as long as the event itself.
The festival's main events run for 72 hours, but the corporation's coverage will stretch to 83 programmes, lasting a total of 144 hours.
The Mail doesn't suggest what parts it would have "edited". Perhaps you only need the first verse of each song?
[Part of Glastonbury 2011 full coverage]