Murdoch attacks BBC

[Philidor]

The Murdoch news empire is furious at the BBC for providing a free news service and using state money to distort the market:

He (James Murdoch) told an audience of top industry figures: “The news operation [of bbc.co.uk] is causing immense problems, huge problems for the independent news business, and I think it should be dealt with.”

FT

In a newspaper article yesterday Murdoch called the BBC "chilling" and went on to claim that only "profit," consumer choice and deregulated private enterprise, e.g. News International, can guarantee a free press.

Above all, we must have genuine independence in news media. Independence is characterised by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency. Independence of faction, industrial or political. Independence of subsidy, gift or patronage.

Independence is sustained by true accountability to customers. People who buy the newspapers, open the application, decide to take out the TV subscription – people who choose a service they value. And people value honest, fearless, and independent news coverage that challenges the consensus.

There is an inescapable conclusion. The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.

Guardian

Murdoch then had a swearing match with the BBC's business editor:

Both men swore at each other and Mr Murdoch banged the table in anger, according to people sitting with them, after Mr Peston contested Mr Murdoch’s call for the deregulation of TV news.

Mr Peston later told the festival that leaving news provision to the market carried “huge risks”. “In something that is as important as the provision of news, which is vital to a properly functioning democracy, the notion of leaving it to the marketplace is, frankly, dangerous.”

I'm not too keen on the Murdoch brood and hope the BBC puts up a good fight. The BBC has similar status in Britain to the NHS and large numbers of people won't like seeing Murdoch attack it.



Peston



Murdoch

[marquis66]

Amazing to me that someone who puts Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck on his TV station can actually mutter the words "honest, fearless, and independent" without his head spinning around, pea soup flying about the room, and a crucifix getting involved.

If only the other side weren't just as bad sometimes. Our political system is really a mess.

[haydnguy]

He's just after that money.

[Florestan]

Originally Posted by marquis66

Amazing to me that someone who puts Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck on his TV station can actually mutter the words "honest, fearless, and independent" without his head spinning around, pea soup flying about the room, and a crucifix getting involved.

If only the other side weren't just as bad sometimes. Our political system is really a mess.

Not only that, but letting market forces run free in the media just means more mindless garbage on every channel.

However, I think Brits see the BBC much as they see the NHS. In other words, scumbag free-marketeers can get their greedy, dirty, dishonest hands off it.

[marquis66]

Originally Posted by Florestan

Not only that, but letting market forces run free in the media just means more mindless garbage on every channel.

You speak as if socializing it is a way to prevent mindless drivel

And I like commercial TV, in some regards. I would like to think that better revenues would lead to better shows. Actually, if it would guarantee the end of Reality (sic) TV, I would gladly pay more!

[Florestan]

Originally Posted by marquis66

You speak as if socializing it is a way to prevent mindless drivel

And I like commercial TV, in some regards. I would like to think that better revenues would lead to better shows.

You know they don't.

What do Americans think we have on the BBC? Programmes called Stalin the Hero? How to be a good Communist? Let's all Sing the Red Flag, Comrades? Kill a Free Marketer Today? Do you think Robert Peston is a member of the SWP?



For that matter, do you think a commercial programmer would broadcast the Proms - and subsidise them to the tune (ha!) of millions?

[marquis66]

Originally Posted by Florestan

What do Americans think we have on the BBC? Programmes called Stalin the Hero? How to be a good Communist? Let's all Sing the Red Flag, Comrades? Kill a Free Marketer Today? Do you think Robert Peston is a member of the SWP?

Hey now! Be gentle, I said no such thing!

BUT, if we are being honest about, Socialist Realism was a very real institution not all that long ago. I don't think it is quite fair to imply that it can't, or perhaps more importantly doesn't, happen. It happens here too, this is certainly not a local phenominon for you guys across the pond.

Originally Posted by Florestan

For that matter, do you think a commercial programmer would broadcast the Proms - and subsidise them to the tune (ha!) of millions?

For one, I think that is one thing that NPR/PBS does better than commercial TV. But even there, the broadcasts are heavily subsidized by private corporations (as in the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts every Sunday).

But I think that it is a joke to assume that shows the quality of the great commercial shows (Can you imagine what would have happened to "Battlestar Gallactica" or "Heroes" if it was managed or funded by Congress!?!). I am also not worried about propanganda as much as I am worried about increased censorship, something which is a horrific problem over here whenever the government gets involved. Under the commercial model, I can contribute to companies who support shows that I like, meaning those shows get more money and keep being made. "Journeyman" was a notable exception to that rule, a show that feel victim to the Screen Writer's Guild strike.

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by marquis66

BUT, if we are being honest about, Socialist Realism was a very real institution not all that long ago. I don't think it is quite fair to imply that it can't, or perhaps more importantly doesn't, happen. It happens here too, this is certainly not a local phenominon for you guys across the pond.

Are you serious?

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by marquis66

(Can you imagine what would have happened to "Battlestar Gallactica" or "Heroes" if it was managed or funded by Congress!?!).

It probably would have been better. The BBC is fantastically good at producing high quality science fiction attracting millions of viewers, going back to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Quatermass"]Quatermass [/ame]in 1953. Current hits include:

Dr Who
Torchwood

Just those two shows alone drive the advertisers on the commercial channels bonkers. Their viewers hemorrhage to the BBC and the amount they can charge for advertsing drops like a stone. hehe

Originally Posted by marquis66

Under the commercial model, I can contribute to companies who support shows that I like, meaning those shows get more money and keep being made.

You certainly do contribute. I don't know how much you pay in the US for commercial cable or satellite but in Britain it's about £50 per month for the basic Murdoch (Sky) package = £600 p.a. The BBC license fee is £139.50 p.a.

There's this weird idea on the right that to pay for something in the private sector is a form of democracy. Why not pay the same money into a pot and control it directly through the ballot box? At root that's all the BBC is: a pot of money controlled by the voters, to be spent on broadcasting. If you're worried about state censorship then sack the politicians who censor and elect those who don't. It's not rocket science! Why let the likes of Murdoch and shareholders interested only in profit pollute the process? It's such a strange, culturally damaging, self-wounding thing to do!

[Scott Good]

The key to this seems to me to be a balance between private and public sector. All one or the other is very dangerous. Like any system, a key to it's survival and vibrancy is through diversity.

We have gotten hammered here with the CBC. It is a terrible shame. But, our present government wants the country to be entirely private sector.

I love the BBC. Not everything, as it is flawed like anything. But the service it provides Britain and indeed the world in this day of modern communication, is very valuable.

"There is an inescapable conclusion. The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit."

Umm..I'm sorry but this is bogus. Like so many things in the world, profit is being confused with quality.

To not have to profit allows for a great many freedoms that profiting does not. Profit is a driver, yes. But it is only a driver to meet supply with demand - nothing more. It is a quantity indicator, not quality.

I don't want to go further, and I'm not an economist, but this Murdock seems like quite the suspicions character.