The #BBCF1 viewing figures currently being promulgated by BBC pundits are spurious and misleading

The BBC seem to be trying to justify their much reduced coverage of Formula One by publishing slanted and incomplete viewing figures.

Of course I am biased in favour of the BBC coverage. Apart from Martin Brundle, the Sky team falls way short of Auntie's in terms of technical knowledge. Motor racing is not simply a matter of watching cars drive round in circles while picking out the colours of the leader.

I really resent the way that the Beeb felt able to cut the number of live races televised by more than 50% and yet are still able financially to commission such utter rubbish as The Voice which is unbelievably coming back for another series. I know that some of the F1 commenting team are feeling guilty because they are tweeting and retweeting such nonsense as these figure below for the Malaysian GP:
BBC - 4.01m (peak 4.66m)
SKY - 722k (peak 1.35m)
If you accept these figures you must also believe that millions of Sky boxes fell off roofs over the weekend.
The live Sky coverage was at a time on a Sunday morning when most people are still snoring in their pits. So how many recorded and watched later?
How many watched Sky and then watched the Beeb's highlights for a different perspective?
How many grey viewers did Sky have?
And most importantly.Ok 5 or 6 times the number of people watched the BBC but all that really signifies is that not many people can afford the £300 odd a year for Sky. The only fair comparison would be if it were free.
It just annoys me that the BBC think incomplete figures such as these can be used to say that, in spite of the reduced service, people still watch us as opposed to Sky. I have no doubt that if the figures were smaller they would use it as a justification for further cuts. The customer can never ever win against the bean counters.