Murdoch Whines about the BBC

[ScottishJohn]

Been reading this:

BBC NEWS | Business | Murdoch attack on 'dominant' BBC

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.

It seems the BBC is getting in the way of Murdoch's ability to make money. Poor wee soul! I would suggest that 'those who value news' would continue to prefer paying the license fee and accessing news via the BBC than paying for the meddled with crap that comes from the likes of SKY and FOX. You couldn't pay me to read their news. At least by charging for it they willreduce the number of people taken in by their lies and spin. His father admitted last year to using his media empire to try and influence events on the Iraq war.

Murdoch junior referred to the BBC as 'State Sponsored Media' which makes me laugh, because ythe reality is that the license payer holds the BBC to account. Whereas Sky answers to Murdoch senior alone and is 'sponsored' by him to disseminate his propaganda.

Nice to see him unhappy. Long may it continue.

 

[non-religious]

Agreed....

FOX is awful and I never buy newspapers, although always get my fix via the Independent web site.

I am however less inclined to get my news from the BBC, especially the radio. I can't stand the the self-promotion. They advertise their own programming every few minutes and I find it so annoying. To be honest the tv output isn't that great neither. Newsnight is something I occasionally watch and on a seperate note, I am very pleased to see that they paid for the rights to show The Wire. That alone is worth the license fee imo.

As for Murdoch, I'm sure he'll scrape through these lean times

 

[ScottishJohn]

Agreed....

FOX is awful and I never buy newspapers, although always get my fix via the Independent web site.

I am however less inclined to get my news from the BBC, especially the radio. I can't stand the the self-promotion. They advertise their own programming every few minutes and I find it so annoying. To be honest the tv output isn't that great neither. Newsnight is something I occasionally watch and on a seperate note, I am very pleased to see that they paid for the rights to show The Wire. That alone is worth the license fee imo.

As for Murdoch, I'm sure he'll scrape through these lean times

I'd agree with the TV news, although I'd say that there isn't a channel I would think of highly where TV news is concerned. I'd probably think the BBC was near the top of a pretty poor heap. As far as radio is concerned I love the radio 4 news and comment, and their more in depth programming. I think from our own corresepondant is one of the best pieces of broadcasting there is.

On the whole though I think the internet would be my preferred source for news, and I think the BBC site is great. It is also the site which is causing Murdoch junior to shed a few tears, and that endears it to me even more.

 

[Madcap Mo]

Please note that "independent" news and television isnt, it's commercial television and especially in the case of Murdochs little following it sure aint politcally independent! Yes i've seen Republican butt licking on Fox news!
Any who, yeah commercial is having a hard time getting funding Boo freakin who! That gives them absolutly no right to try and slice the BBC's funds (I'm looking at you ITV!)

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Been reading this:

BBC NEWS | Business | Murdoch attack on 'dominant' BBC



It seems the BBC is getting in the way of Murdoch's ability to make money. Poor wee soul! I would suggest that 'those who value news' would continue to prefer paying the license fee and accessing news via the BBC than paying for the meddled with crap that comes from the likes of SKY and FOX. You couldn't pay me to read their news. At least by charging for it they willreduce the number of people taken in by their lies and spin. His father admitted last year to using his media empire to try and influence events on the Iraq war.

Murdoch junior referred to the BBC as 'State Sponsored Media' which makes me laugh, because ythe reality is that the license payer holds the BBC to account. Whereas Sky answers to Murdoch senior alone and is 'sponsored' by him to disseminate his propaganda.

Nice to see him unhappy. Long may it continue.

I think there was merit in what was being said. The BBC has had a platform for state-sponsored propaganda for many years. I find Channel 4 news too detailed, but you cant compare the rubbish US FOX etc. to UK news groups.
But it's not just news, it's the whole propaganda for the British establishment, the continuous offence, just one recent example being the BBC cooking up an excuse not to allow any information out for charity to the victims of Israel.
The whole media is controlled by the establishment, and push a very anti-Christian agenda now. If it wasn't for having visitors in the house, i would not support any of them, by having a TV at all.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I think there was merit in what was being said. The BBC has had a platform for state-sponsored propaganda for many years. I find Channel 4 news too detailed, but you cant compare the rubbish US FOX etc. to UK news groups.
But it's not just news, it's the whole propaganda for the British establishment, the continuous offence, just one recent example being the BBC cooking up an excuse not to allow any information out for charity to the victims of Israel.
The whole media is controlled by the establishment, and push a very anti-Christian agenda now. If it wasn't for having visitors in the house, i would not support any of them, by having a TV at all.

I can't say that I really agree - the BBC are hardly kind to the government, and there are very careful checks and balances in place to prevent the kind of money interfernce between government and BBC. The BBC is accused of bias by both Labour and Tory, and is generally critical of any incumbent government. It's stanc eon the Iraq war has been consistently to report exactly what is happening in Iraq, unlike other networks like fox etc who gravitate towards a positive spin.

I think anyone who calls the BBC government propaganda can't really have followed much of their news reporting, excepting perhaps their role in the war effort in WWII, although most media outlets could be included in that caveat.

The appeal you refer to is an interesting situation, because normally the BBC is being panned for it's perceived anti Israel stance. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of the appeal, but I think the point made about the ability of any agency to deliver aid to Gaza in that situation without it going to Hamas was a good one.

In my experience any organisation disliked by both sides of the argument has generally been fair to both.

 

[non-religious]

[ScottishJohn]I can't say that I really agree - the BBC are hardly kind to the government, and there are very careful checks and balances in place to prevent the kind of money interfernce between government and BBC. The BBC is accused of bias by both Labour and Tory, and is generally critical of any incumbent government. It's stanc eon the Iraq war has been consistently to report exactly what is happening in Iraq, unlike other networks like fox etc who gravitate towards a positive spin.

I think anyone who calls the BBC government propaganda can't really have followed much of their news reporting, excepting perhaps their role in the war effort in WWII, although most media outlets could be included in that caveat.

The appeal you refer to is an interesting situation, because normally the BBC is being panned for it's perceived anti Israel stance. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of the appeal, but I think the point made about the ability of any agency to deliver aid to Gaza in that situation without it going to Hamas was a good one.

In my experience any organisation disliked by both sides of the argument has generally been fair to both.

I agree

 

[marlowe007]

Anybody still under the delusion that the BBC isn't completely state-controlled had best think twice. The corporation is state-owned, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect an owner to dictate his property. Observe, for example, the way in which the Blair regime pressured Andrew Gilligan into resignation for his refusal to peddle the WMD propaganda.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Anybody still under the delusion that the BBC isn't completely state-controlled had best think twice. The corporation is state-owned, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect an owner to dictate his property. Observe, for example, the way in which the Blair regime pressured Andrew Gilligan into resignation for his refusal to peddle the WMD propaganda.

Someone else who's obviously never listened to the BBC.

Gilligan was sloppy tabloid style journalist who hung himself out to dry by going beyond what he could demonstrate and entering the world of conjecture. He had no scruples about revealing his source either. He may well have been right but he was a poor journalist, and it was he who chose to resign - had he placed himself on stronger ground, he would probably still be there.

The idea that thee BBC is in any way pro government is hilarious. They are one of the best tools we have for holding the government to account.

It's decision making is wholly independent of government - something demonstrated by the fact that they broadcast the Gilligan allegations despite their being intensely damaging to the government. If the BBC were truly government controled and government edited we would never have heard gilligans report.

You should read up on the constitution and governance of the BBC.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I wasn't talking specific about the UK government .. Labour or the others, i was talking about the British Establishment. I know it's nothing like as terrible as the US 'media', which is an absolute disgrace, but such issues pop up sometimes, to illustrate who is running the show behind the scenes, and it is always biased against Christianity, and pro-hard-core establishment values. The lies go back a long way. The lies exposed during the moon shot, the BBC caught in the act of cutting out a part of Bhutto's speech about Bin Laden being dead already.. they get caught out, and these things can be proved to anyone open to the facts.
Pro Iraq invasion, pro Afghan war, pro-Israel etc. I noticed recenty Paxman shout down a female guest who i thought had some valid points.. and he has been shown up and humiliated by George Galloway.
I dont watch much TV anymore, as they never tell the real truth that goes on in the world, you never learn anything, and it's the same with the newspapers, so now instead of buying the broadsheets and reading propaganda of the establishment, i now buy the Sun,, as at least it's cheap.. 90p for the Times now on a good day. £2 for Sunday paper, filled and packed with piles of rubbish, only to be used to put on the floor when you'r doing the decorating.

 

[non-religious]

[hiscosmicgoldfish]i now buy the Sun

What, for the sport? The page three? The gossip columns?

You don't trust most mainstream news outlets, but you buy that crappy newspaper

 

[ScottishJohn]

I wasn't talking specific about the UK government .. Labour or the others, i was talking about the British Establishment. I know it's nothing like as terrible as the US 'media', which is an absolute disgrace, but such issues pop up sometimes, to illustrate who is running the show behind the scenes, and it is always biased against Christianity, and pro-hard-core establishment values. The lies go back a long way. The lies exposed during the moon shot, the BBC caught in the act of cutting out a part of Bhutto's speech about Bin Laden being dead already.. they get caught out, and these things can be proved to anyone open to the facts.
Pro Iraq invasion, pro Afghan war, pro-Israel etc. I noticed recenty Paxman shout down a female guest who i thought had some valid points.. and he has been shown up and humiliated by George Galloway.
I dont watch much TV anymore, as they never tell the real truth that goes on in the world, you never learn anything, and it's the same with the newspapers, so now instead of buying the broadsheets and reading propaganda of the establishment, i now buy the Sun,, as at least it's cheap.. 90p for the Times now on a good day. £2 for Sunday paper, filled and packed with piles of rubbish, only to be used to put on the floor when you'r doing the decorating.

The Sun? And you expect me to take anything you say about media seriously? The sun!

I can tell you don't watch TV, I'm not sure I believe you ever did. The BBC has not been pro Iraq war. They are most commonly accused of being anti Zionist, and the web is littered with Zionists complaining about the BBC. As for the rest of the stuff it sounds like you are annoyed that your favourite conspiracy theories are not shared by institutions like the BBC.

First you say pro government, then you retract that and say you meant pro some kind of big shadowy establishment thing.

I like the BBC, it has its failings and I don't take any news network at face value, but the BBC comes closest in my book to a good network.

PS I went on the BBC website right now, and before you even scroll down there are 4 stories, three telling bad news about Afghanistan and one telling bad news about Iraq.

 

[English_Guy]

I think you can compare the BBC to the NHS. It does a lot of good and has some awful problems and inconsistencies.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I think you can compare the BBC to the NHS. It does a lot of good and has some awful problems and inconsistencies.

I think that's fair, and I think that in both situations I would choose the public body over the private alternative, because the public body is accountable to me, rather than to owners and shareholders and because the public body uses my money to provide services, and reinvests all proceeds into service rather than taking profit out. If you look at the quality of service as well, compare the value for money offered by the NHS to the US system - the US system fails in delivering longer life or healthier population, and yet it costs more than 3 times more than ours does. And we are currently talking about spending less on the NHS despite having one of the lowest costing health systems in the developed world.

 

[English_Guy]

In the past two years I have had pneumonia, my wife breast cancer & my daughter has had a baby by caesarian section. I thank God for the NHS & the wonderful treatment we have received.

I think the facts of the last few years alone should dispel the myth that everything in our society should be left to market forces - an idea that seemed to gain prominence in the eighties.

 

[ScottishJohn]

In the past two years I have had pneumonia, my wife breast cancer & my daughter has had a baby by caesarian section. I thank God for the NHS & the wonderful treatment we have received.

I'm in a similar position, we've just had two kids over the last two years, both by section one planned and one emergency, my mum had breast cancer a couple of years ago too. At no stage did money have to enter into any of those situations. The NHS is amazing. Of course it could be better in some facets, but so could everything.

I think the facts of the last few years alone should dispel the myth that everything in our society should be left to market forces - an idea that seemed to gain prominence in the eighties.

Yup. Totally agree. It is like pinning everything to the weather forecast. Noone really understands the market or can accurately predict what it is going to do, so it all comes to a choice between guessing, or planning.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I know the BBC and Channel 4 are virtuous and decent compared to the US media, which is so bad that it is beyond belief, but still, the ban on adverts for charities for Gaza, had me so enraged, that anything they do or say in future needs to be looked at more closely, and anyone who comes out and says what he thinks about the BBC is then listened to more closely.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I know the BBC and Channel 4 are virtuous and decent compared to the US media, which is so bad that it is beyond belief, but still, the ban on adverts for charities for Gaza, had me so enraged, that anything they do or say in future needs to be looked at more closely, and anyone who comes out and says what he thinks about the BBC is then listened to more closely.

It is one thing to expect a news network to be responsible, it is completely another to expect them to be infallible. The may have made the wrong decision on the Gaza thing, they may have been unduly influenced by trying to silence the legions of critics who feel they give the Palestinians too much air time and too much sympathy, however they were at least trying to make a decision based on integrity. Their concerns, although overblown, were reasonable at their roots - they were not convinced of the ability of the charities to get any aid into Gaza, and also concerned that broadcasting an appeal for those on one side of the conflict would threaten their impartiality in reporting the story - which is fair, you cannot be both impartial and champion one side of the conflict.

Probably it was the wrong decision, but I think it was made for good reasons, and it was made under a great deal of scrutiny. Sky for instance - owned by murdoch just like your newspaper of choice - also refused to broadcast the appeal. Noone seems to be bothered about that, which is because people expect more of the BBC because it is a quality network with a good reputation for impartiality, and everything Murdoch touches is tainted.

This is the first appeal by the DEC in 46 years which the BBC have not broadcast.

Some of their concerns were borne out in the long term:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7869704.stm