Murdoch's News Corporation, one of the world's largest media conglomerates, owns the Times, the Sunday Times and Sun newspapers and pay TV provider BSkyB in the UK and the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News TV in the US.
That is what is threatening the plurality and independence of news. Sounds to me like the guy doesn't want plurality, he just doesn't want competition.
The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity. I know a lot of American who only get their news from there because they regard the American press as either too liberal or too conservative. (Or more often than not, too sensationalistic or too "fluffy.")
Don't tell me it's News Corp. vs. Disney -- I won't know who to root against. I mean, that's like the media conglomerate edition of Alien vs. Predator!
An awful lot of BBC generated content on the radio is NOT repeat NOT blocked from internet users outside the UK. I listen to Radio 5 a lot. There are many text's & email from listeners all over the world. The main exceptions are where they don't own the worldwide broadcast rights. Eg PRemiership Footie. Even part of that is broadcast worldwide via the BBC World Service.
The recent Cricket Test series between England & Australia was broadcast worldwide. TMS ( Test Match Special) is very proud of its Worldwide audience not just its listeners in the UK and Oz.
This seems a lot like the time that Accuweather and friends tried to have Santorum, their pet senator, ban the NOAA [kayakforum.com] from providing the public with the weather data they paid for.
Though, to be fair, the News Corporation is at least an order of magnitude more evil.
And you'll get, essentially, the same forecast you'd get from the local media. After all, the NWS is where they get their weather info from.
WRONG My local ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX affiliates all employ highly trained meteorologists who more often than not have won many prestigious awards and have access to the latest ACU-DOPLER 4000 weather satellites/radar nodes/whirlybirds.
Being British, I didn't know about this. Did they try and lock down taxpayer funded weather data so they could sell it to the people who had already paid for it?
Each day I find it harder to see the line between 'business' and 'racketeering'
Yeah, I'd trust the BBC any day of the week over "news" reported by a Murdoch mouthpiece. In case there are people who remain unaware of it, Fox News sued and won for the right to lie to you [wikipedia.org]. That's why it's popular in some circles to call it Faux News.
What about when CBS rigged cars to explode when they slammed into a wall, and then used that story to convince viewers "to call your Senators and Congressmen to ask for tougher safety laws". Fake news indeed.
And then there's John Stossel over at ABC who admitted his corporate overlords routinely censor his pro-small government stories saying, "We can't risk angering the Congress." That video, in case you want to watch it, is on youtube. Keywords - Freedom Watch John Stossel
No, they sued and won for the right to fire employees for refusing to lie to you.
No. The implications of that case were much more broad. Not only did they permit them to fire them -- but it was then, under judgement, supporting the matter that the news is 'merely' (lol) entertainment and that the information need not be factual by any means.
No, they sued and won for the right to fire employees for refusing to lie to you.
A distinction without a difference. It's an uncontested matter of court record that they ordered the producers to knowingly include false information in a news documentary. By prevailing in the law suit, they have established their right to do so again. Do you think they have discontinued the practice after getting a favorable court ruling?
It is not a loophole. There is just something that people assume would be illegal that is not.
You may put News Corp. in a different category than The Onion, but that is your problem.
The employer told the employee to do something completely legal. The employee refused. The employer fired the employee. Whistleblower protections do not apply - there was no whistle to be blown.
With regard to competition, it appears they've committed to a scorched earth policy against all "free" news sources to make their proposed model palatable. It'll be interesting to see the message crafted against PBS+NPR. Even though it is a subscription model at the core, the attack vector will most likely still revolve around the concept of "freeloaders".
Oh please. The BBC is hardly impartial. It's been accused (with evidence) of being pro-Palestinian and well as anti-Israel. It's not neutral. Is the BBC as a concept wonderful? Yeah. Is it objective? No.
Yeah, well plenty of other people have accused it of being pro-Israeli [google.co.uk], so go figure.
I heard an interview with a writer on the radio the other day... BBC Radio 4, incidentally... saying: "The Jews call me anti-semitic and the Arabs call me Zionist. So I suppose I must be doing something right."
Don't trust the BBC to be impartial, fair or balanced, because it is none of these things. Everything it broadcasts reflects the viewpoint of the British Establishment. I trust it to provide me with weather reports, and that's about it. I resent having to pay for it.
Biased BBC [blogspot.com] has the definitive guide.
That blog is definitive, in a sense. In that it accurately represents the fact that those who believe the BBC is systematically biased are right-wing nutjobs
If most Brits didn't like the license fee, it would be a major issue. The Telegraph has spent the last thirty years trying to push for the BBC to be privatized, and it's never had any traction, not even during the height of Thatcher's power. If Thatcher wouldn't kill the BBC, then it's pretty damn clear there's no public will, just evil lying bastards like Murdoch who doesn't want any outside agency showing just how immoral and unethical his news is.
Technically, the BBC is neither government owned nor taxpayer funded. Of course, by law if you operate any equipment capable of receiving broadcast material you have to pay the license fee, but the government doesn't handle or distribute the funding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc#Governance [wikipedia.org]
As an interesting aside, you can use the BBC iPlayer to watch previously shown material without a license, but you can't watch the live stream without one. As long as you watch everything an hour later you're good.
Clearly the BBC is no Pravda (not this year, anyway, or yesteryear), but can any nation trust its government enough that having a taxpayer-funded news service a good idea in the long run? I think that's a question worth thinking about.
Define 'long run'. The BBC has been around for 87 years, if it's going to turn into a instrument for government propaganda, it's taking its time.
I'm also personally concerned with the notion of a "television license". Call it paranoia, but it makes me think of the "secret radio!!" plot in Jakob the Liar -- a government powers to restrict your receipt of telecommunications are not very comforting.
Are you American by any chance? They seem to be paranoid about the government doing anything at all, so I'm not sure whether to take them seriously or not.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday August 29, @03:01PM (#29245961)
I get really tired of people claiming that Not Spouting Right-Wing Garbage = Left-Wing Propaganda.
More politely: Lack of a bias in favour of X does not necessarily equate a bias in favour of some (real or imagined) opposite of X.
In nearly every country I've been in (excepting the US), the Beeb has a much better reputation for objectivity and believability than any US network, including CNN. The reason? It's not beholden to corporate interests or the political biases of an owner.
Warning: "To push politically-correct left-wing viewpoints" is code for "refusing to endorse right-wing/corporatist viewpoints".
Paranoid much? "Left" seems to be a swear word among people who want to replace Western civilized liberalism with some feudal conservative hatemongering more prevalent in the Mid-eastern countries the same hatemongerers pretend to attack. When in reality right-wingers just don't want a mirror...
As a company that has done a lot to destroy fair and good reporting everywhere it goes, News Corp should NOT be listened to as an expert on what will produce 'Fair and Balanced' news. It certainly takes more than calling it 'Fair and Balanced', as their TV station Fox News is ample proof of. Sure, the BBC may have some problems, and may sometimes have some bias, but it still remains by far one of the best and most carefully researched news agencies on the planet. If News Corp had ever shown itself capable of ever producing a decent news organization, they might be worth listening to.
As it is, I think the Murdochs are just upset that a REAL news group keeps them from controlling the news. They want power. If there were anything else I could say to make this a stronger condemnation of News Corp, I would. They are really that bad. They are the evilness that Microsoft only aspires to.
The BBC frequently runs coverage of people criticising the BBC (which happens a lot; it's almost as much of a national pastime as complaining about the weather). One of the things I like about the BBC is that articles like this, when they show up in my RSS feed, report the criticism and don't fill the articles with editorialising about why it's not valid. In this article, the only rebuttal was:
Former BBC director general Greg Dyke said Mr Murdoch's argument that the BBC was a "threat" to independent journalism was "fundamentally wrong".
He told BBC Radio 5 live: "Journalism is going through a very difficult time - not only in this country but every country in the world - because newspapers, radio and television in the commercial world are all having a very rough time."
Irony given News Corp's attitude to reporting about themselves. When they were recently implicated in illegal phone tapping, the silence from News Corp's papers (the Sun, the News of the World et al) was deafening.
Rupert Murdoch may be many things. He's an entirely amoral, self-serving piece of shit who as far as I can tell has never believed in, stood for, or even demonstrated any interest in anything other than furthering his own business interests. Everything else is a means to that end. He's shown no compunction in repeatedly subverting journalistic integrity to promote his own business agenda.
The recent Silvio Berlusconi scandals were promoted by his former ally Murdoch, when Berlusconi made moves to tax Murdoch's Sky Italia satellite TV network less favourably. Yes, Berlusconi is just as bad, but that's beside the point- the fact that Murdoch can use the might of his own network to wage a partisan campaign against him is hardly A Good Thing.
It's been clear for a long time that Murdoch Sr hates the BBC because it's competition, and not because of any higher principle, regardless of what he likes to claim. Like the Berlusconi case, it's clear he's quite happy for his mouthpieces to sacrifice journalistic integrity in favour of going after his enemies.
Anyway, back to the point. Murdoch may be many things, but he's not an idiot. Quite the opposite. His one-dimensional focus and complete absence of any principles have made him an extremely shrewd businessman.
I wouldn't count him out too soon, any more than I'd finish the cancer drugs halfway through the course because the tumour hadn't been quite as aggressive this week.
This is a bit rich coming from a Murdoch, a family have the greatest impact on British public life. Many votes are swayed according to what the sun says. And whats more the family managed to reduce "The Times" from a great pillar of the establishment to the least respected broadsheet.
'The people' have already paid for the BBC via their TV license fees, it is in no way 'free'. Why should they pay again just because Murdoch doesn't like the competition?
Untrue. The BBC is funded solely through the license fee, sales of it's programmes abroad, and sales of other materials.
It receives no government funds. It is no more answerable to the government than any other media organisation. It pays it's taxes. It also has a unique lack of pressure from external commercial interests.
everyone that purchases a TV in Britain [has] to support the BBC, whether they actually watch it or not.
Yes, this is true. But the BBC in turn provides such an excellent benchmark that all the other FTA broadcasters in the UK have to raise their game, so it arguably has a positive effect on your viewing even if you don't watch it. Just the reduction in commercial break sizes (a maximum average of 12 minutes, versus about 18 minutes in the USA) is worth the license fee, which is very small compared to the costs of equivalent offerings.
Imagine if the USA had an equivalent, independent, federally mandated institution (PBS is federally funded and thus is not independent). It could either produce about 4 times as much content or cost half the money.. and still produce twice as much content. And that's compared to....
8 national TV channels, including two dedicated childrens channels and a news channel.
Interactive TV
HD programming
10 national radio stations
National radio for the smaller parts of the Union (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)
More than 40 local radio stations
The BBC website (including the news, and TV on demand via iPlayer)
Hey Murdoch, I am a UK BBC licence fee payer and I have no problems with what the BBC is doing with my cash with regards to their news provisions, especially their excellent news Web site.
You don't like what they are doing with my cash? Tough - if you don't like it, get another job.
'It is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it,' says Murdoch.
Murdoch isn't selling anything I want to pay for. Now, if the BBC charges for its content, I would give serious consideration to doing so. There -- free market in action!
What many people don't understand is that companies don't want to compete. Ideally, they want to form a monopoly and then stop innovating (because that's a cost) and raise prices (because that's profit). If they can't form a monopoly, they want to form a cartel with their main rivals. Murdoch and Son realize they can't buy the BBC, so they're taking the cartel approach whining about how they "can't compete". Actually what they're saying is, "Our plan to raise prices won't work, as long as someone doesn't. Join the news cartel, and we'll all profit."
The Internet is all about free access to information and news. The BBC, PBS, NPR, etc are all public organizations that give out free information anyway and usually funded by the government and donations.
News Media Corp is a private corporation and doesn't seem to get the free news and free information philosophy of the Internet. If they charge for access to news and information they will suffer for it. Then only the wealthy will be able to access it, and some of the wealthy will refuse to pay and go to free sources instead.
Also when a news or information source is pay only and private, it cannot be used for citations anymore as a professor cannot log on to verify the source because they cannot afford the fees to every pay source of news and information and usually require the student to use the sources that the college provides for peer reviewed news articles and papers.
Murdoch is shooting himself in the foot with such a move.
He's not shooting himself in the foot, he's acting in his own self interest. Yes, it may be kind of short-term thinking, but it would be profitable if he could do what he is trying to do.
I don't know if all info is meant to be free. The Wall Street Journal charges and makes money. They are providing a specific sector with timely and well researched information. There is value in that.
But what he is missing is the fact that for most topics a newspaper, newscast, or news channel is no longer the commodity. The STORY is the commodity.
As a UK TV license payer I have no problem whatsoever with how the BBC spends my money. A media network charged with producing quality independent broadcasting is fine in my book.
I find their news to be far more balanced and fair than any commercial operator I've encountered, as they're not beholden to their advertisers and contributers and rather to their audience. A perfect example being the current debate in America about socialized healthcare.
First we had reports about how the NHS was being used as an example of how socialized healthcare doesn't work, then reports on the anger this caused in the British populace (my God I was angry), then reports on the isolated incidents where the NHS has failed people.
Nowhere else have I found a more balanced and fair news outlet and I'm eternally grateful that we have our wonderful British Broadcasting Corporation.
It says a lot that James Murdoch has felt he had to attack the BBC to protect his business interests.
"owns the Times, the Sunday Times and Sun newspapers"
Sorry you can't call The Sun a 'newspaper'! Seriously, a publication who's most popular story today is entitled "I had walk with a yeti on holiday [thesun.co.uk]"??
Good news coverage is worth paying for. Unfortunately for Murdoch, with the sole exception of the Wall Street Journal, none of his holdings produce good journalism. Because with the exception of the Journal, everything covered in his TV stations or newspapers I can find in three hundred other locations on the web, in other newspapers, or on other TV stations. Because its all reworked AP stories. Good in-depth journalism died years ago, and now all we get from 99.9999999 percent of US media sources, including Murdoch's, is cookie-cutter stories.
If Murdoch really expects me to pay, then he's going to have to improve journalism at his own holdings and give me original information I can't find anywhere else. When he can do that, I'll pay (as I do for the WSJ now). Until then, not a chance in hell.
The WSJ does produce decent news, and he's busy trying to stop that, because since he's had it, its gone down hill like hell.
Seriously, some of the best quality media comes out of the independant but govt owned sources, the BBC in the UK, ABC & SBS in Australia, the CBC in Canada and so one. Because these news sources are largely empowered (not fully so CBC & SBS, but mostly) to operate without bowing down to advertisers and big corporate interests, and LARGELY the govts have backed off from interfering with their autonomy (Oh they try, but the stations tend to resist). We actually need that. In Australia the ABC have proven their govt independence by shows like 4 Corners that have always been prepared to attack the government when it behaves badly , and interestingly in ways the commercial TV stations seem reluctant to. The SBS provides foreign and experimental programming that would never be shown by the bottom-line conscious commercial shows. And at a time when commercial TV is completely debased by ridiculous reality shows and idiotic right wing "current affairs" (usually consisting of harrassing poor people for being on welfare and the like) , the ABC provides high class drama, news, documentaries and so on.
Seriously Murdoch can go fuck himself. His shitty newspapers spread hate and fear in our community with its attacks on minorities and poor people, and he's done the same in the US with the gutteral fox news service. He's got no right to complain if nobody wants to pay for his "news". Make a non shit product and people might pay for it. Its not govt money that makes the BBC popular, its the fact that the alternatives are so fucking dismal.
Murdoch Senior had a nasty habit at kicking the BBC in a similar manner. Nice to see Junior hasn't bothered to develop his own consciousness and has merely cloned his dad's. Seriously these rants translate as little more than a vain attempt to undermine the competition with cheap rhetoric designed to increase profit and feed ignorance. I mean when Dad's worth an estimated $4 billion world domination is about the only thing left to try, and the BBC as an a mostly impartial and independent media service is obviously standing in the way.
Anyone who is in any way swayed by Murdoch Junior's argument needs to read Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent and then needs to wake up to the fact that the BBC is perhaps the one media outlet that stands in the way of the frightening picture this book paints. After all the BBC is in a different industry in that they're about providing media to their audiences and news to the public, not audiences to their advertisers and propaganda to their punters.
Well you don't need to pay the license fee to listen to BBC radio broadcasts, or to read news on the BBC website. And that's the way it should be. Some things should just be free for everybody, like education, libraries and access to the basic information about what's going on in the world around you (ie. news).
Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what is threatening the plurality and independence of news. Sounds to me like the guy doesn't want plurality, he just doesn't want competition.
The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity. I know a lot of American who only get their news from there because they regard the American press as either too liberal or too conservative. (Or more often than not, too sensationalistic or too "fluffy.")
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Funny)
"One of the world's largest" is actually number two, according to Wikipedia, behind Disney. So now we know what his real target is. The Mouse.
Parent
Please don't tell me that! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't tell me it's News Corp. vs. Disney -- I won't know who to root against. I mean, that's like the media conglomerate edition of Alien vs. Predator!
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Informative)
An awful lot of BBC generated content on the radio is NOT repeat NOT blocked from internet users outside the UK. I listen to Radio 5 a lot. There are many text's & email from listeners all over the world.
The main exceptions are where they don't own the worldwide broadcast rights. Eg PRemiership Footie. Even part of that is broadcast worldwide via the BBC World Service.
The recent Cricket Test series between England & Australia was broadcast worldwide. TMS ( Test Match Special) is very proud of its Worldwide audience not just its listeners in the UK and Oz.
Perhaps you should check your facts?
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Interesting)
Though, to be fair, the News Corporation is at least an order of magnitude more evil.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Informative)
For free NOAA/National Weather Service forecasts for your ZIP code (USA only) go to weather.gov [weather.gov], input your city and state.
Then, at that next page, input your ZIP code.
Save the URL of the resulting page with the forecast for your ZIP code.
This will make EX-Senator Santorum weep bitter, bitter tears.
And you'll get, essentially, the same forecast you'd get from the local media. After all, the NWS is where they get their weather info from.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Funny)
And you'll get, essentially, the same forecast you'd get from the local media. After all, the NWS is where they get their weather info from.
WRONG My local ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX affiliates all employ highly trained meteorologists who more often than not have won many prestigious awards and have access to the latest ACU-DOPLER 4000 weather satellites/radar nodes/whirlybirds.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being British, I didn't know about this. Did they try and lock down taxpayer funded weather data so they could sell it to the people who had already paid for it?
Each day I find it harder to see the line between 'business' and 'racketeering'
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Funny)
Now, that's something you didn't see on the BBC.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Informative)
What about when CBS rigged cars to explode when they slammed into a wall, and then used that story to convince viewers "to call your Senators and Congressmen to ask for tougher safety laws". Fake news indeed.
And then there's John Stossel over at ABC who admitted his corporate overlords routinely censor his pro-small government stories saying, "We can't risk angering the Congress." That video, in case you want to watch it, is on youtube. Keywords - Freedom Watch John Stossel
Fake news indeed. Bias evident.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Informative)
No, they sued and won for the right to fire employees for refusing to lie to you.
No. The implications of that case were much more broad. Not only did they permit them to fire them -- but it was then, under judgement, supporting the matter that the news is 'merely' (lol) entertainment and that the information need not be factual by any means.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they sued and won for the right to fire employees for refusing to lie to you.
A distinction without a difference. It's an uncontested matter of court record that they ordered the producers to knowingly include false information in a news documentary. By prevailing in the law suit, they have established their right to do so again. Do you think they have discontinued the practice after getting a favorable court ruling?
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not a loophole. There is just something that people assume would be illegal that is not.
You may put News Corp. in a different category than The Onion, but that is your problem.
The employer told the employee to do something completely legal. The employee refused. The employer fired the employee. Whistleblower protections do not apply - there was no whistle to be blown.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Interesting)
With regard to competition, it appears they've committed to a scorched earth policy against all "free" news sources to make their proposed model palatable. It'll be interesting to see the message crafted against PBS+NPR. Even though it is a subscription model at the core, the attack vector will most likely still revolve around the concept of "freeloaders".
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. The BBC is hardly impartial. It's been accused (with evidence) of being pro-Palestinian and well as anti-Israel. It's not neutral. Is the BBC as a concept wonderful? Yeah. Is it objective? No.
Yeah, well plenty of other people have accused it of being pro-Israeli [google.co.uk], so go figure.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
Don't trust the BBC to be impartial, fair or balanced, because it is none of these things. Everything it broadcasts reflects the viewpoint of the British Establishment. I trust it to provide me with weather reports, and that's about it. I resent having to pay for it.
Biased BBC [blogspot.com] has the definitive guide.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
That blog is definitive, in a sense. In that it accurately represents the fact that those who believe the BBC is systematically biased are right-wing nutjobs
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
If most Brits didn't like the license fee, it would be a major issue. The Telegraph has spent the last thirty years trying to push for the BBC to be privatized, and it's never had any traction, not even during the height of Thatcher's power. If Thatcher wouldn't kill the BBC, then it's pretty damn clear there's no public will, just evil lying bastards like Murdoch who doesn't want any outside agency showing just how immoral and unethical his news is.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, the BBC is neither government owned nor taxpayer funded. Of course, by law if you operate any equipment capable of receiving broadcast material you have to pay the license fee, but the government doesn't handle or distribute the funding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc#Governance [wikipedia.org]
As an interesting aside, you can use the BBC iPlayer to watch previously shown material without a license, but you can't watch the live stream without one. As long as you watch everything an hour later you're good.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Informative)
Define 'long run'. The BBC has been around for 87 years, if it's going to turn into a instrument for government propaganda, it's taking its time.
Are you American by any chance? They seem to be paranoid about the government doing anything at all, so I'm not sure whether to take them seriously or not.
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
I get really tired of people claiming that Not Spouting Right-Wing Garbage = Left-Wing Propaganda.
More politely: Lack of a bias in favour of X does not necessarily equate a bias in favour of some (real or imagined) opposite of X.
In nearly every country I've been in (excepting the US), the Beeb has a much better reputation for objectivity and believability than any US network, including CNN. The reason? It's not beholden to corporate interests or the political biases of an owner.
Warning: "To push politically-correct left-wing viewpoints" is code for "refusing to endorse right-wing/corporatist viewpoints".
Parent
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Paranoid much? "Left" seems to be a swear word among people who want to replace Western civilized liberalism with some feudal conservative hatemongering more prevalent in the Mid-eastern countries the same hatemongerers pretend to attack. When in reality right-wingers just don't want a mirror...
Parent
Symmetry (Score:5, Insightful)
That's OK, I criticize James Murdoch's News Corporation for providing false news.
I know which I would rather not be accused of.
As a company (Score:5, Insightful)
As it is, I think the Murdochs are just upset that a REAL news group keeps them from controlling the news. They want power. If there were anything else I could say to make this a stronger condemnation of News Corp, I would. They are really that bad. They are the evilness that Microsoft only aspires to.
Ultimate irony (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC reporting on someone saying the BBC is shit.
That sort of objectivity is why they need to survive just as they are.
Re:Ultimate irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Former BBC director general Greg Dyke said Mr Murdoch's argument that the BBC was a "threat" to independent journalism was "fundamentally wrong".
He told BBC Radio 5 live: "Journalism is going through a very difficult time - not only in this country but every country in the world - because newspapers, radio and television in the commercial world are all having a very rough time."
Parent
Re:Ultimate irony (Score:5, Informative)
Irony given News Corp's attitude to reporting about themselves. When they were recently implicated in illegal phone tapping, the silence from News Corp's papers (the Sun, the News of the World et al) was deafening.
Parent
Murdoch is not an idiot... (Score:5, Informative)
I like the BBC. Murdoch's an idiot.
Rupert Murdoch may be many things. He's an entirely amoral, self-serving piece of shit who as far as I can tell has never believed in, stood for, or even demonstrated any interest in anything other than furthering his own business interests. Everything else is a means to that end. He's shown no compunction in repeatedly subverting journalistic integrity to promote his own business agenda.
The recent Silvio Berlusconi scandals were promoted by his former ally Murdoch, when Berlusconi made moves to tax Murdoch's Sky Italia satellite TV network less favourably. Yes, Berlusconi is just as bad, but that's beside the point- the fact that Murdoch can use the might of his own network to wage a partisan campaign against him is hardly A Good Thing.
It's been clear for a long time that Murdoch Sr hates the BBC because it's competition, and not because of any higher principle, regardless of what he likes to claim. Like the Berlusconi case, it's clear he's quite happy for his mouthpieces to sacrifice journalistic integrity in favour of going after his enemies.
Anyway, back to the point. Murdoch may be many things, but he's not an idiot. Quite the opposite. His one-dimensional focus and complete absence of any principles have made him an extremely shrewd businessman.
I wouldn't count him out too soon, any more than I'd finish the cancer drugs halfway through the course because the tumour hadn't been quite as aggressive this week.
Parent
Pot and kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't free (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they pay again just because Murdoch doesn't like the competition?
Re:Government sponsered (Score:5, Informative)
Untrue. The BBC is funded solely through the license fee, sales of it's programmes abroad, and sales of other materials.
It receives no government funds. It is no more answerable to the government than any other media organisation. It pays it's taxes. It also has a unique lack of pressure from external commercial interests.
everyone that purchases a TV in Britain [has] to support the BBC, whether they actually watch it or not.
Yes, this is true. But the BBC in turn provides such an excellent benchmark that all the other FTA broadcasters in the UK have to raise their game, so it arguably has a positive effect on your viewing even if you don't watch it. Just the reduction in commercial break sizes (a maximum average of 12 minutes, versus about 18 minutes in the USA) is worth the license fee, which is very small compared to the costs of equivalent offerings.
Imagine if the USA had an equivalent, independent, federally mandated institution (PBS is federally funded and thus is not independent). It could either produce about 4 times as much content or cost half the money .. and still produce twice as much content. And that's compared to....
And that's all commercial free [bbc.co.uk] , with a mandate to inform, educate, and entertain [bbc.co.uk].
Parent
Hey Murdoch, ask me (Score:5, Informative)
Hey Murdoch, I am a UK BBC licence fee payer and I have no problems with what the BBC is doing with my cash with regards to their news provisions, especially their excellent news Web site.
You don't like what they are doing with my cash? Tough - if you don't like it, get another job.
Yours etc..
Re:How special do you think you are? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is my opt-out?
You don't need to own a TV. Or live in the UK. Either will work just fine for getting you out of paying the license fee.
Parent
QOTD (Score:4, Insightful)
'It is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it,' says Murdoch.
Murdoch isn't selling anything I want to pay for. Now, if the BBC charges for its content, I would give serious consideration to doing so. There -- free market in action!
Ahh Yes the Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
What many people don't understand is that companies don't want to compete. Ideally, they want to form a monopoly and then stop innovating (because that's a cost) and raise prices (because that's profit). If they can't form a monopoly, they want to form a cartel with their main rivals. Murdoch and Son realize they can't buy the BBC, so they're taking the cartel approach whining about how they "can't compete". Actually what they're saying is, "Our plan to raise prices won't work, as long as someone doesn't. Join the news cartel, and we'll all profit."
News and Information is meant to be free (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet is all about free access to information and news. The BBC, PBS, NPR, etc are all public organizations that give out free information anyway and usually funded by the government and donations.
News Media Corp is a private corporation and doesn't seem to get the free news and free information philosophy of the Internet. If they charge for access to news and information they will suffer for it. Then only the wealthy will be able to access it, and some of the wealthy will refuse to pay and go to free sources instead.
Also when a news or information source is pay only and private, it cannot be used for citations anymore as a professor cannot log on to verify the source because they cannot afford the fees to every pay source of news and information and usually require the student to use the sources that the college provides for peer reviewed news articles and papers.
Murdoch is shooting himself in the foot with such a move.
Re:News and Information is meant to be free (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not shooting himself in the foot, he's acting in his own self interest. Yes, it may be kind of short-term thinking, but it would be profitable if he could do what he is trying to do.
I don't know if all info is meant to be free. The Wall Street Journal charges and makes money. They are providing a specific sector with timely and well researched information. There is value in that.
But what he is missing is the fact that for most topics a newspaper, newscast, or news channel is no longer the commodity. The STORY is the commodity.
Parent
Up the BBC (Score:5, Insightful)
I find their news to be far more balanced and fair than any commercial operator I've encountered, as they're not beholden to their advertisers and contributers and rather to their audience. A perfect example being the current debate in America about socialized healthcare.
First we had reports about how the NHS was being used as an example of how socialized healthcare doesn't work, then reports on the anger this caused in the British populace (my God I was angry), then reports on the isolated incidents where the NHS has failed people.
Nowhere else have I found a more balanced and fair news outlet and I'm eternally grateful that we have our wonderful British Broadcasting Corporation.
It says a lot that James Murdoch has felt he had to attack the BBC to protect his business interests.
Backhanded compliment (Score:4, Insightful)
If a member of the Murdoch family is criticizing you, you're probably doing something right.
Just for the record, I love the BBC and I love the NHS; nuts to anyone who thinks they're somehow evil.
Typo in summary... (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry you can't call The Sun a 'newspaper'! Seriously, a publication who's most popular story today is entitled "I had walk with a yeti on holiday [thesun.co.uk]"??
He's sorta right (Score:5, Insightful)
Good news coverage is worth paying for. Unfortunately for Murdoch, with the sole exception of the Wall Street Journal, none of his holdings produce good journalism. Because with the exception of the Journal, everything covered in his TV stations or newspapers I can find in three hundred other locations on the web, in other newspapers, or on other TV stations. Because its all reworked AP stories. Good in-depth journalism died years ago, and now all we get from 99.9999999 percent of US media sources, including Murdoch's, is cookie-cutter stories.
If Murdoch really expects me to pay, then he's going to have to improve journalism at his own holdings and give me original information I can't find anywhere else. When he can do that, I'll pay (as I do for the WSJ now). Until then, not a chance in hell.
he's actually wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
The WSJ does produce decent news, and he's busy trying to stop that, because since he's had it, its gone down hill like hell.
Seriously, some of the best quality media comes out of the independant but govt owned sources, the BBC in the UK, ABC & SBS in Australia, the CBC in Canada and so one. Because these news sources are largely empowered (not fully so CBC & SBS, but mostly) to operate without bowing down to advertisers and big corporate interests, and LARGELY the govts have backed off from interfering with their autonomy (Oh they try, but the stations tend to resist). We actually need that. In Australia the ABC have proven their govt independence by shows like 4 Corners that have always been prepared to attack the government when it behaves badly , and interestingly in ways the commercial TV stations seem reluctant to. The SBS provides foreign and experimental programming that would never be shown by the bottom-line conscious commercial shows. And at a time when commercial TV is completely debased by ridiculous reality shows and idiotic right wing "current affairs" (usually consisting of harrassing poor people for being on welfare and the like) , the ABC provides high class drama, news, documentaries and so on.
Seriously Murdoch can go fuck himself. His shitty newspapers spread hate and fear in our community with its attacks on minorities and poor people, and he's done the same in the US with the gutteral fox news service. He's got no right to complain if nobody wants to pay for his "news". Make a non shit product and people might pay for it. Its not govt money that makes the BBC popular, its the fact that the alternatives are so fucking dismal.
Parent
In related news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prostitutes are demanding that everybody else stop providing sex for free, as it reduces the demand for their paid services.
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Murdoch Senior had a nasty habit at kicking the BBC in a similar manner. Nice to see Junior hasn't bothered to develop his own consciousness and has merely cloned his dad's. Seriously these rants translate as little more than a vain attempt to undermine the competition with cheap rhetoric designed to increase profit and feed ignorance. I mean when Dad's worth an estimated $4 billion world domination is about the only thing left to try, and the BBC as an a mostly impartial and independent media service is obviously standing in the way.
Anyone who is in any way swayed by Murdoch Junior's argument needs to read Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent and then needs to wake up to the fact that the BBC is perhaps the one media outlet that stands in the way of the frightening picture this book paints. After all the BBC is in a different industry in that they're about providing media to their audiences and news to the public, not audiences to their advertisers and propaganda to their punters.
Re:it's not free (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent