Murdoch attack on 'dominant' BBC

[klr]

Reported by ... the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8227915.stm

News Corporation's James Murdoch has said that a "dominant" BBC threatens independent journalism in the UK.

The chairman of the media giant in Europe, which owns the Times and Sun, also blamed the UK government for regulating the media "with relish".

"The expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision," Mr Murdoch said.

He was giving the MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival.

Mr Murdoch said that organisations like the BBC, funded by the license fee, as well as Channel 4 and Ofcom made it harder for other broadcasters to survive.

Free news

"The BBC is dominant," Mr Murdoch said. "Other organisations might rise and fall but the BBC's income is guaranteed and growing."

News Corporation lost $3.4bn (£2bn) in the year to the end of June, which his father, News Corporation boss Rupert Murdoch, said had been "the most difficult in recent history".

Other media organisations are also struggling as advertising revenues have dropped during the downturn.

Mr Murdoch said free news on the web provided by the BBC made it "incredibly difficult" for private news organisations to ask people to pay for their news.

"It is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it," he said.

News Corporation has said it will start charging online customers for news content across all its websites.

It owns the Times, the Sunday Times and Sun newspapers and pay TV provider BSkyB in the UK and the New York Post and Wall Street Journal in the US.

Rupert Murdoch addressed the same festival 20 years ago.

My reaction? In a word (or a picture):

[Rum]

There is no rule which says that market economics must always be the way to go. Personally I love the BBC and I have no problem paying my 180 per year for the service - I view it as a tax which is exceedingly well spent! The Murdoch empire, on the other hand, want to control as much of the media as they can, commercially, and despite protests, they have a political agenda - and it is not a socially leaning one.

They can fuck right off and leave our BBC alone!

[klr]

There is no rule which says that market economics must always be the way to go. Personally I love the BBC and I have no problem paying my 180 per year for the service - I view it as a tax which is exceedingly well spent! The Murdoch empire, on the other hand, want to control as much of the media as they can, commercially, and despite protests, they have a political agenda - and it is not a socially leaning one.

They can fuck right off and leave our BBC alone!

Right on bro. I was prompted to post this after seeing Murdoch spewing venom during his speech - featured as the lead item on Newsnight. Would you ever see Sky News broadcasting (let alone headlining) a piece that called into question it's very role or viability? And hosting a round-table discussion afterwards.

I pay for the BBC TV service via my cable subscription, and very willingly. I wouldn't lose a winks sleep if I lost the basic Sky channels (I never look at them), and there is nothing special about Sky News.

As you say, Murdoch has a definite political agenda. He already controls enough media outlets, yet he still wants more.

[AshtonBlack]

Of all the Media outlets there are around these days, the BBC's very nature makes it unlikely to be allowed to have a political agenda. Where as the money grubbers such as the Murdochs of this industry are essentially self serving dictatorships.

I gladly pay my TV licence.

[klr]

BTW, watching Murdoch Junior spewing his bile, I couldn't help but be struck by the resemblance to the evil media mogul played by Jonathan Pryce in the Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies. Quite appropriate really, especially as Pryce's character was partly "inspired" by Murdoch Senior..

[Horwood Beer-Master]

So James Murdoch takes after his ghastly old-man when it comes to bitching about the BBC. So fucking what? Ignore the pair of them I say.



Besides, how does anyone with the surname 'Murdoch' have the right to talk about "independent journalism"?

[klr]

So James Murdoch takes after his ghastly old-man when it comes to bitching about the BBC. So fucking what? Ignore the pair of them I say.



Besides, how does anyone with the surname 'Murdoch' have the right to talk about "independent journalism"?

By lying through those sharp, white teeth of his.

[Rum]

The problem we need to combat is that somehow market economics is the default position and that somehow the BBC is an anomaly. This is hegemony thinking and also bullshit!

[klr]

The problem we need to combat is that somehow market economics is the default position and that somehow the BBC is an anomaly. This is hegemony thinking and also bullshit!

The output of the likes of Sky and ITV is more than enough evidence that purely profit-driven TV tends to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. They provide some of the best evidence against unfettered market-based TV. I don't buy the argument that they can't compete against the BBC when it comes to commissioning high quality documentaries (for example). Sky Sports makes an obscene amount of profit: Why can't some of that be ploughed back into educational broadcasting? We all know the answer why ...

I remember a full page ad in The Sunday Times (IIRC) many years ago that essentially warned against the dumbing down and fragmentation of TV that would occur because of satellite broadcasting and suchlike. It sounded like scaremongering at the time, but in retrospect you can see the point.

[AshtonBlack]

The problem we need to combat is that somehow market economics is the default position and that somehow the BBC is an anomaly. This is hegemony thinking and also bullshit!

The output of the likes of Sky and ITV is more than enough evidence that purely profit-driven TV tends to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. They provide some of the best evidence against unfettered market-based TV. I don't buy the argument that they can't compete against the BBC when it comes to commissioning high quality documentaries (for example). Sky Sports makes an obscene amount of profit: Why can't some of that be ploughed back into educational broadcasting? We all know the answer why ...

I remember a full page ad in The Sunday Times (IIRC) many years ago that essentially warned against the dumbing down and fragmentation of TV that would occur because of satellite broadcasting and suchlike. It sounded like scaremongering at the time, but in retrospect you can see the point.

Sky TV had revenue in 2008 of £3.7 Billion, the BBC had a license fee revenue of £3.3Billion, with £700millon made from the commercial arm. Not exactly dominant.
The BBC's mission statement: "To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain."
Sky TV is there to make money for it's shareholders and directors. Everything else is bullshit.

[The Red Fox]

The Beeb threatens independence in journalism? And I suppose having vast amounts of media owned by one man isn't? I've had the misfortune to read and hear the trash which comes from Murdoch-owned "journalism", and if that's the alternative I would happily have the BBC and the BBC only. It isn't perfect, but its impact on our culture is priceless. The Murdochs understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion Fox "News" is where Murdoch's real opinions shine through.

[AshtonBlack]

The Beeb threatens independence in journalism? And I suppose having vast amounts of media owned by one man isn't? I've had the misfortune to read and hear the trash which comes from Murdoch-owned "journalism", and if that's the alternative I would happily have the BBC and the BBC only. It isn't perfect, but its impact on our culture is priceless. The Murdochs understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion Fox "News" is where Murdoch's real opinions shine through.

Well said. I don't mean to sound like a fanboi, but the BBC is the only channel I watch "live" as it were.

[klr]

The problem we need to combat is that somehow market economics is the default position and that somehow the BBC is an anomaly. This is hegemony thinking and also bullshit!

The output of the likes of Sky and ITV is more than enough evidence that purely profit-driven TV tends to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. They provide some of the best evidence against unfettered market-based TV. I don't buy the argument that they can't compete against the BBC when it comes to commissioning high quality documentaries (for example). Sky Sports makes an obscene amount of profit: Why can't some of that be ploughed back into educational broadcasting? We all know the answer why ...

I remember a full page ad in The Sunday Times (IIRC) many years ago that essentially warned against the dumbing down and fragmentation of TV that would occur because of satellite broadcasting and suchlike. It sounded like scaremongering at the time, but in retrospect you can see the point.

Sky TV had revenue in 2008 of £3.7 Billion, the BBC had a license fee revenue of £3.3Billion, with £700millon made from the commercial arm. Not exactly dominant.
The BBC's mission statement: "To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain."
Sky TV is there to make money for it's shareholders and directors. Everything else is bullshit.

Very true. But in the live sports market, Sky has absolutely enormous clout - and it shows. It's not even attempting to compete in areas where there's not a tidy profit to be made. As you say, it's there to make money, and that's that.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Murdoch=cunt

[klr]

Murdoch > cunt