James Murdoch Criticizes BBC For Providing "Free News"

Hugh Pickens writes "News Corporation's James Murdoch says that a 'dominant' BBC threatens independent journalism in the UK and that free news on the web provided by the BBC made it 'incredibly difficult' for private news organizations 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,' says Murdoch. 'The expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision.' In common with the public broadcasting organizations of many other European countries, the BBC is funded by a television license fee charged to all households owning a television capable of receiving broadcasts. 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." Note that James Murdoch is the son of Rupert Murdoch.

Comments

Threatening plurality?

[KingSkippus]

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.")

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Bazman]

"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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This seems a lot like the time that Accuweather and friends tried to have Santorum, their pet senator, ban the NOAA 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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Frequency Domain]

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. That's why it's popular in some circles to call it Faux News.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Tenebrarum]

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.")

...and with that, Mr. Murdoch can bog right off and come back when he's willing to pry the BBC from our cold, dead hands.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Darkness404]

Exactly, while I do sometimes question their RSS feed from having bias in the stories they promote, on the average they seem to do a good job of being objective, much better than say, CNN, Fox and MSNBC. About the only thing that I sometimes miss from the other networks is some more local, US centric stories, but for world news, the BBC is perhaps the best, hands down.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[characterZer0]

No, they sued and won for the right to fire employees for refusing to lie to you.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity.
.
Perhaps one considers the BBC "objective" if one is left-of-center. However, a report commissioned by the BBC itself (reported here) found bias.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[theskipper]

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".

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Chris Tucker]

For free NOAA/National Weather Service forecasts for your ZIP code (USA only) go to 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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Richard Kirk]

"Faux news"?. Ooohhh, that's _cruel_. Specially when they put out quality stuff like this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543280,00.html

Now, that's something you didn't see on the BBC.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[joocemann]

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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Frequency Domain]

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?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[owlnation]

The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity.

No, not in the UK it isn't. That's absolutely nothing like a "fact". The BBC's long been criticized for having a a pro-Labour party bias, as well as a few other biases. It does have also a virtual monopoly on UK broadcasting, with very little to challenge its practices.

Murdoch is correct in some ways. He's obviously saying it for his own nefarious ends. And the large percentage of the UK media his company owns is also a very big part of the problem too. Reverting to charging for online news isn't a good idea -- for anyone. But more competition is a VERY good idea.

However, there are many, many issues with the way the BBC behaves, it does need to be examined more closely. It's news reports are not as trustworthy as you seem to think.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[MightyMartian]

Which is why the BBC has been at the forefront of reporting the MP expense scandal in Britain, which has certainly done far more damage to Labour than to the Conservatives.

I'm not saying the BBC is perfect, but as new sources goes, it's probably up there as being one of the most reliable in the world. Look at the demonstrations in Iran. Without the BBC's Farsi division, the extent of our knowledge of what happened after the election would be far less.

Besides, even if there is some bias in the BBC, it's nothing compared to that grand misinformation network known as Fox News. Murdoch is a lying worthless sack of crap who views journalism as a propaganda tool. He's nothing more than Leonid Brezhnev with a large collection of fancy cars.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree. I don't trust Fox news for one bit. They would likely get paid by big pharmaceutical companies to talk against public healthcare in England. They will make news promoting war over peace as companies selling arms probably pay much better than those paying to bring peaceful news. Big companies simply pay better to bring whatever news they want you to hear.

No much better to let the people pay to hear the news the people want to hear. BBC is certainly more neutral than FOX.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FooAtWFU]

In all fairness, though he's being a self-serving jerk, there's a point: What if (George W Bush|Obama|Stalin|Hitler|Kim Jong Il|the Pope|your choice of "monster" here|Rupert Murdoch himself under government contract with the next administration) used billions and billions of tax dollars to put out a news service, delivering it to every home in the country for free, and outcompeted all the other news sources, driving them to bankruptcy and ruin? Would that be fair? Would there not be at least some risk of it being a Pravdaesque version of reality endorsed by the government to the exclusion of any criticism they didn't feel like having? 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.

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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

Really? ABC-Disney is the largest? I thought for sure the largest conglomerate was NBC-Universal which owns at least 10 channels in the U.S., an Europe-wide channel, and also various broadcast stations in Australia and Japan. That would make FOX-Murdoch a distant fourth, after the ABC, CBS, NBC oligarchs.

Back to article-

I'm surprised the BBC gives-away free news on the web. They block their radio and television programs from being seen by anyone who has not paid a TV/radio license (UK citizens), so I would expect them to do the same for text. (shrug)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Dogtanian]

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, so go figure.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FourthAge]

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 has the definitive guide.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

NOAA forecasts are not available to non-U.S. citizens (or if they are available, have no value way over in Europe).

Likewise it makes sense that BBC news should not be available to non-UK citizens, just as radio and television programs websites are blocked. Non-citizens have not paid the BBC license.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice that it came from the Sun? That puts it roughly in the same category as Slashdot's Idle section.

Folks to the right of center are allowed to have a sense of humor you know, just like folks from the left of center and folks in the center. They're all permitted to have a chuckle now and then.

Now once you start to get too far from the center in either direction then the sense of humor starts to diminish rapidly and generally degenerates into childish name calling. Utterances like "Faux News" and "Al Reuters" provide endless amusement to those simple folks who endlessly repeat them.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh...Santorum. Thank you Dan Savage--every time I hear the man's name I think of fecal matter and lube.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[techno-vampire]

That's not quite how I see it. AIUI, the final decision was that as the law currently read, distorting or falsifying the news was not unlawful, so the whistleblower law didn't apply. If you don't like it (and I, for one, don't) write to your congresscritters and senators and try to get the law changed.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Stuart Gibson]

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

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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[negRo_slim]

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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, you had a senator named after the excreta of anal sex? Is he a friend of the ex-president named after a woman's pubes?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought it was 'Roto-Reuters' - Plumbing the depths for the sewage nobody else will publish.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[roguetrick]

Despite that, I tend to find World Service to be pretty straight forward, for western audiences at least.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Retron]

NOAA forecasts are not available to non-U.S. citizens (or if they are available, have no value way over in Europe).

Oh, but they are - and they have great value over here.
NOAA runs the GFS, the world's largest (and most complete) free weather model. It's not as good as ECMWF, the European equivalent, but as the data's available via FTP for free four times a day. There are a number of sites over here which prettify the data and charge people to access it. Metcheck and Netweather, for example, both have "premium" areas where you pay to access data that's available to anyone for free if you know how to decode GRIB files.
ECMWF, on the other hand, provides much less data for free, instead charging for all the good stuff (eg ensemble forecasts). It's annoying as ECMWF is funded by the European taxpayers! The UK's Met Office does the same, charging people for its data even though it's funded from taxation (and part of the UK's military budget at that). The Met Office even charges people who (voluntarily) submit their data in the event that they need to access it in the future...

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

Oh I forgot NBC. They did a story about rollover-prone SUVs on Dateline, but some sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the SUVs were *pushed over* by a machine under the vehicle.

If you believe FOX News is the only channel that lies, then you are easily duped.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[negRo_slim]

They are as slanted as PBS, constantly trying to explain why we need more and bigger government programs. I don't need to hear that bias. Just once I'd like to hear either the BBC or PBS present a story about why government needs to be smaller, but of course that will never happen.

It's not like they'd ever run a story on Thomas Jefferson.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Mikkeles]

Hardly; pro-Labour is well right of centre.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Trepidity]

Disney's the largest media conglomerate just by sheer company size, not necessarily as a measure of its control of news media--- Disney makes a bunch of money from movies, cruises, and theme parks as well.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

When I check the BBC from outside of the UK, I see ads running on the pages, presumably to offset the bandwidth and hosting costs and maybe make some money, I don't know how lucrative they are.

I agree that, since I haven't paid any BBC licence fee, I have no right to access their stuff, if they don't feel like providing it; but does it follow that they shouldn't have the right to offer it, if they feel like it? Assuming that the ads allow them to at least break even on my pageviews, the fee-payers aren't hurt by my getting a copy of the news(and, if they more than break even, they are benefited).

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Trepidity]

I don't think anyone's arguing that News Corp. was wrong as a matter of law--- it may indeed have been legal for them to fire an employee for refusing to including knowingly false information in a news broadcast. But it does mean that, as a matter of credibility, News Corp. is now on the record standing up for this right to knowingly provide false information in its news broadcasts. Do you really want to get your news from a news company that is willing to go to court to defend its right to lie?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[savorymedia]

The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity.

Um...really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

NOTE: For the record, I think FOX News is shit and Murdoch should be hung by his balls...but let's not pretend that the BBC is some bastion of fairness and impartiality.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[damburger]

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'

Re:Threatening plurality?

[kaoshin]

You can do the same from cell.weather.gov to bookmark local weather on your mobile device.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[dkf]

I'm surprised the BBC gives-away free news on the web. They block their radio and television programs from being seen by anyone who has not paid a TV/radio license (UK citizens), so I would expect them to do the same for text. (shrug)

It's only advertising-free in the UK, just like their TV channels. (Though to be fair, their web ads are at least reasonably discreet; the ones on BBC World News - which I've watched a fair bit of over the years as I've been traveling - are much more annoying.)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI that's only true for radio, not TV, I just tried iPlayer for a Top Gear episode and it says 'you can't use iPlayer TV outside the UK, but you can listen to Radio, click here to find out WHY'.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Threatening plurality?

[damburger]

Bigger government programs? Like the Iraq war? When they reported about how the government was cooking up the evidence for Saddam's WMDs?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

, he just doesn't want competition.

I'm inclined to think he'd just prefer us to pay much much much more for his service than what is paid through UK TV licenses.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[dkf]

The Met Office even charges people who (voluntarily) submit their data in the event that they need to access it in the future...

Why not just submit data with systematic errors in it, and start a campaign to persuade others to do so too? If they won't at least let you have a discount (or build up an account towards the occasional free access) then why should they get to access the service you provide for free?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[techno-vampire]

The point I was trying to make was that News Corp.took advantage of a loophole in the law to get away with what they'd done, and as far as I know, they have every right to do that, just as you and I do. Instead of (or, if you prefer in addition to) complaining about it here on Slashdot, complain to the people who have the power to close the loophole and keep it from happening again.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity

True, but FYI the BBC often gets a shoeing here for being biased one way or another. Said Andrew Marr:

The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias

That said, I'm quite fond of Auntie Beeb. =)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[damburger]

Anyone who thinks the BBC is 'left wing' is clearly off with Enoch Powell on the political spectrum.

Generally, the BBC is most concerned with what its licence payers think. Its always been ahead at soliciting public opinion (remember "Points of View"?) to the point where it has been accused of pandering to popularity at times (Mitchell and Webb have a go at them here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E10Bp_mPXXA ).

If you consider the BBC left wing, then frankly you consider the British population left wing as well. Why not try moving to the US?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[toriver]

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...

Re:Threatening plurality?

[damburger]

The above poster does not speak for the UK readers.

The BBC is as respected an institution as the NHS over here, and you know the shit that went down when Americans came along to have a go at that.

What you have to bear in mind is that, in the minds of most Brits, this Murdoch prick is trying to kill Doctor Who.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[damburger]

The British people are generally more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, from a US or a conservative perspective. The BBC, if it shows such a bias, is just reflected the views of its owners.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[RotateLeftByte]

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?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are joking aren't you? The main problem with the BBC is that people assume its the gold standard for news, when in reality its no better than any other news organisation.

They blindly publish anything from Government, but wont report any factual errors in the statements.
They are just as sensationalist as the tabloids. (reporting every single swine flu death recently is pure scare tactics).
Headlines do not reflect the story being reported.
They are extremely Euro-phobic to the point of disinformation.
Complicated stories often have very important details missing.

And talking about Farsi.... The BBC blindly repeated a mistranslation from Iran, hidden at 3am on Radio 4 was an detailed discussion about the translation, conclusion the translation was wrong. The Beeb still repeated the mistranslation on the headline news.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[nospam007]

In all fairness, though he's being a self-serving jerk, there's a point: What if (George W Bush|Obama|Stalin|Hitler|Kim Jong Il|the Pope|your choice of "monster" here|Rupert Murdoch himself under government contract with the next administration) used billions and billions of tax dollars to put out a news service, delivering it to every home in the country for free, and outcompeted all the other news sources, driving them to bankruptcy and ruin?

That's what we had in Europe until 20 years ago and everybody liked it.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Snaller]

"Fox News sued and won for the right to lie to you. "

No they didn't. You are no better than them when you twist the truth like that.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Homburg]

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

Re:Threatening plurality?

[characterZer0]

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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[characterZer0]

Would whoever modded me Troll please post log out and post anonymously to explain why?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost as many tears as this: http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Sir_Lewk]

And yet they still try to tell me it wasn't supposed to rain last night...

Seriously, the vast majority of the time the convienence of not going to some crappy site and being bogged down by a corporate nightmare of a website, or having to wait for the weather on the TV, greatly makes up for whatever limited insight meteorologists can possibly add.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

A distinction without a difference

There's no such thing.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Meumeu]

Actually the mix of lube and shit is named after the senator...

Re:Threatening plurality?

[apoc.famine]

In addition, it's ad-free. NOAA and the NWS are some of the unsung heroes of government organizations. There, you can actually see your tax dollars at work. If you're giving Accuweather or Weather.com your clicks, you're giving them free money for not doing much of anything.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[apoc.famine]

As an American, BBC news is my #3 news source, behind our National Public Radio news, and my local news. It's my #1 source for non-US news. Nothing else comes close in that area.
 
Murdoch isn't really involved in news, so I don't know what his issue is. I guess if your business revolves around stories told incompletely for sensation, openly biased reporting to fuel flames, and blatantly made up shit, you might have issues with BBC News. They're probably the most likely to make you look like a fool.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[opticalbiophysics]

Subjectivism. Just because two parties are involved doesn't mean the two sides to the story should be given equality in reporting. BBC's agenda of "objectivity" feeds the methods of evil despots and hateful extremists with greater facility than FOX news ever did... Now here's where all the people ruled by hatred (self and otherwise) go an equate Bush et. al. to Al-Qaeda. My point is that BBC's s@$t stinks too.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FourthAge]

If the BBC really provides value for money, then why doesn't it move to a subscription model, so that people can pay for it if they want? There are subscription channels on satellite and digital terrestrial TV. If you don't pay, you don't get them.

Clearly, if most Brits love the BBC, they won't mind "opting in" and paying for BBC channels.

On the other hand, if most Brits would rather not pay for the BBC, then that rather calls the whole "licence fee" thing into question, does it not?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that was weak, as you're correct. I've modded you underrated.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ScrewMaster]

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.")

As an American myself, I'd say that much of our news is all of the above, but I could accept that. The problem is, it's more often inaccurate, misleading or simply outright fabrication. Note that the press in this country was given special consideration under our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, so that we could make informed choices about who we select as our leaders. Unfortunately for us, the press has largely abrogated that responsibility in favor of crass money-grubbing and political pandering. And that has gone hand-in-hand with the rapid expansion of our various governmental bodies and ongoing loss of civil liberties.

Had the free press done its job as the Founders intended it to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion. At least we still can (have discussions like this, I mean) but it's by no means guaranteed that that will always be so. In any event, I do hit the BBC for a lot of information ... mostly for impartial reporting on the political affairs of my own country. That pisses me off as well. Oh, not at the BBC, but at the news organizations in the U.S. who seem to believe that it is now their job to provide PR for the big boys, and in the process mold public opinion. I do not want my opinion molded, and I think that any reporter who fraudulently expresses his personal opinions and biases as fact without disclaimer should be given free room and board by the State for a while.

At this point, I'm inclined to think that if the press isn't going to do their jobs right, they shouldn't be given any special privileges. They're no longer informing us ... they're disinforming us and yes, Mr. Murdoch, you're at the forefront of that particular movement. Furthermore, any claims you have about the quality and impartiality of BBC reporting sound like they are: more lies. The BBC does a fine job and most of its counterparts in your organization could learn a few things from them. The Brits already pay for the privilege of having the BBC so it's hardly free, and in any event, they're better off without having you anywhere in the picture.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[realnrh]

Yes, clearly PBS has destroyed the free market for television in the US. Woe is us.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Draek]

A distinction without a difference.

There is a difference, but I'm not sure it's in their favor. If a company is allowed to lie then you'll get both liars and honest people from them, but if a company is allowed to fire people for refusing to lie, eventually you'll only have liars working there.

But, perhaps the consistency of the latter case outweights the value of the ocassional honesty in the former, as you can then dismiss them without guilt. Dunno really.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FourthAge]

You say "right wing nutjobs" but I think you mean "people who disagree with the BBC". Those are exactly the people I would expect to provide the most information on how the BBC is biased.

If you wanted evidence of Fox News bias, you would probably not ask a Republican. You would probably ask a Democrat. Particularly a Democrat who had been reporting on Fox News bias for some time.

Equally if you want evidence of BBC bias, you need to get it from elsewhere in the political spectrum. Don't you think?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ScrewMaster]

NOAA forecasts are not available to non-U.S. citizens (or if they are available, have no value way over in Europe).

A. That's just not true, and B. do you have any idea how much information on, well, pretty much everything the U.S. government gives away for free, whether you live here or not? Bash America if you like, but get your goddamn facts straight. Oh, and while you're at it turn off your GPS receiver: that system was paid for by U.S. taxpayers and you really shouldn't be using it, you know. Wouldn't be right and all, since you didn't pay a single Euro for it.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[chrispycreeme]

Isn't it funny how 90% of Americans are "far left of center" according to Fox News Viewer? That crazy majority of rational people are just the "far far left"... I guess that could happen but for some reason I doubt it. Of course we'll all be sorry when the proof comes out that Iraq perpetrated 9-11 and that Obama is going to kill our grandmothers.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Trepidity]

I agree with that, which is precisely why I think attacking News Corp. for it in the public sphere, not legislative changes, is the right course of action. Publishing false news, even knowingly, is legal. But companies that do so should also be widely exposed as doing so, so nobody takes them seriously as news providers.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

/. needs "+-0 : Right-wing nutjob" and a "+-0 : Loony lefty" moderations :)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not British. I do not elect the UK Parliament and I would not like to be ruled by a monarchy. We had revolution 90 years ago. Mr. Murdoch is Australian. So we both are not British. So why does he interfere in internal matters of third nations? BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[HiThere]

FWIW, there *is* a difference between refusing to tell you the truth and lying to you.

That said, my presumption on any news channel is that what I'm seeing is fiction which may bear some relation to the truth. Usually it does bear some relation to the truth...but the relation certainly isn't identity. (I've been at several events which I've afterwards seen reported. This isn't an opinion formed in ignorance.)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[bdleonard]

Or, where weather.gov asks for your city and state, you can just enter your zip code. Saves a step, and you can feel like a rebel for disobeying the US government,

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

TMS ( Test Match Special) is very proud of its Worldwide audience not just its listeners in the UK and Oz.

The fruits of British colonialism, eh?

I'm pretty sure nobody in the US or continental Europe gives a crap about cricket. But sure, the countries with RHD...

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ScrewMaster]

You may put News Corp. in a different category than The Onion, but that is your problem.

I think you just hit the nail on the head. Fox News isn't all fabrication, but there's really no way to tell what is and isn't at any given moment, unless you verify it against an organization with a better class of reporting (the BBC, for example.) It really does bother me, as an American, that so much my country's press has been taken over by the likes of Murdoch. Our Founders would be more than a little disturbed by recent events, I'm sure. Spinning in their graves and all that. People don't understand why I refuse to watch any of the major news outlets: I don't like being lied to when I can't tell when I'm being lied to.

Some folks don't seem bothered by that: I guess as long as they can hear what they want to hear, they're okay with it. It's easier that way, I suppose.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they do that here too. It makes more sense to accuse the media of systemic bias than to admit that their ego is bruised by the fact that their views are validated in conspiracy rags but not major news outlets. The question of which scenario is true is solved Occam's razor. The problem of their opinion mattering was solved by the most recent presidential and congressional elections.

So can the sarcasm, Frenchy, we're doing the best we can!

Re: Threatening plurality?

[Black Parrot]

Would that be fair?

Depends on whether you subscribe to the Reaganite doctrine that a government should not be allowed to do anything that a capitalist middle-man could make a profit on.

Beyond that, I'm having a bit of trouble working up any sympathy for a guy who's complaining that a public service is making it hard for him to charge people for the lies he tells them.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[jabithew]

You can't use iPlayer outside the UK, but you can use it within the UK but without a TV License.

You can't watch live TV in the UK without a TV License.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[BitterOak]

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.

So if you want to compete with the BBC in the television broadcast business, your customers still have to pay the BBC in order to watch your broacasts. Yeah, that's great for competition. And it is a tax if the government is doing the enforcing. Just because they don't call it a tax doesn't mean it isn't.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FourthAge]

I think you are correct and most undeserving of a Flamebait moderation.

The BBC is left wing, in the social sense of the word. The BBC slavishly supports the New Labour social programmes, from really big things like the public sector expansion, the quangos and the NHS, through the whole authoritarian anti-terror laws, right down to small but important things like political correctness and the doctrine of equality. New Labour may not be left wing in economic terms, but in terms of social policy, they are most definitely hard left.

The BBC helped New Labour gain power, and celebrated when they did:

"I do remember... the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I'll always remember that"
Jane Garvey

BBC Five Live, May 10th, 2007, recalling May 2nd, 1997.

And now the BBC is using its considerable power to ensure that the Conservatives must continue to support New Labour policy, even though it has led Britain into recession and is badly in need of reform.

The BBC's greatest achievement is making people believe that "left wing = good". The BBC has done this incredibly well. I see that one of your other replies conflates "right wing" with "Islamic dictatorship".. well, we can thank the BBC for that one. And another suggests that you are "off with Enoch Powell". I suspect this is meant as an insult, implying you are a racist, although the poster may be aware of Tony Blair's gushing praise for Mr Powell on his death in 1998 and may simply be implying that you are a Blairite.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true within the UK.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

it could be worse - at least they didnt broadcast the 'World' series or American football.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded you can't post to this article, and they won't be back to read what you wrote, so don't hold your breath for an answer. Any answer you get will not be from the person who modded you. Don't worry. That is what the Meta Moderation system is there for ;-)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[__aagmrb7289]

Can someone please explain what "known false" information was forced on these people? The Wikipedia article is so poorly sourced and written, I couldn't really tell, and I would have trouble believing it even if it HAD bothered to present any pertinent information. And sourcing the websites and articles WRITTEN BY THE FIRED EMPLOYEES? This is why Wikipedia is rarely taken seriously.

So, anyone? Was this a falsehood like reporting that there are scientists who don't believe that global warming is caused by man, or is this a falsehood like saying the sun does not give off any heat? And what WAS the falsehood?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"If you believe FOX News is the only channel that lies, then you are easily duped."

So you are calling these people Slashdot articles? That is a low blow man ... really low ...

Re:Threatening plurality?

[agnosticnixie]

He owns some newspapers in the UK... IIRC, he owns The Sun or for the historically savvy, the newspaper that happened to be the main media support of this obviously benign guy

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

Okay well it still makes sense that BBC news should not be available "free" to non-UK citizens, just as radio and television programs websites are not available for free. Non-citizens have not paid the BBC license.

>>>charging people for its data even though it's funded from taxation

It sounds to me like the ECMWF and MET operate the same as U.S. roads. They are Not funded by taxation, but instead funded by tolls charged to people using them. Ditto our post office.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

No, not in the UK it isn't. That's absolutely nothing like a "fact". The BBC's long been criticized for having a a pro-Labour party bias

They labeled you a troll because "they can't handle the truth". Every organization is biased in some respect. Just follow the money back to the source.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Nexus Seven]

I am British and also would not like to be ruled by a monarchy. Fortunately I'm not ruled by one, though I'm not sure why this is relevant.

The Murdoch in question here is James Murdoch, Rupert's son, who is British too.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, you can have your precious GPS. We will manage nicely without it, thank you..

Re:Threatening plurality?

[lowededwookie]

That just proves how out of touch with reality America is.

How can you have a "World" series when only one country from the "World" competes.

And America wonders why people hate it so much.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

This same situation is happening in Canada. Recently a family with two little boys were out when a thunderstorm developed. The two boys where struck by lightning. The family, grieved, has been calling for an explanation as to why they were not warned of the lightning danger. The fact is that the national weather service provided by the government and paid for by the people has it's hands bound by those who would re-sell the information to those who already paid for it.

From what I understand, and this is second party information, they are only allowed to release the lightning information an hour after the event, where as the for-pay re-sellers get the information for free but charge for near live access.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to hang out that far left of the fulcrum to balance out the truly colossal mass that is Rush Limbaugh

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Dreadneck]

Each day I find it harder to see the line between 'business' and 'racketeering'

It's easy to remember - 'business' is government approved.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[knorthern knight]

> How can you have a "World" series when only
> one country from the "World" competes.

Errrrr, uhmmmm, 1992 and 1993 anybody?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Teun]

if your business revolves around stories

Hehe, I regularly work at remote locations where fresh papers are unknown, TV reception is difficult and internet impossibly expensive (Satellite).
We often find old papers in drawers, left by a previous occupancy and in case of the British Murdoch 'papers' they remain readable because their stories have little to no semblance with News.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Teun]

At this point, I'm inclined to think that if the press isn't going to do their jobs right, they shouldn't be given any special privileges.

Please reconsider your definition of press.

That alone might help fix your predicament.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Darinbob]

Of course, on the Palestinean/Israeli issue, if you are truly neutral then both sides will call you biased. This applies to any divisive issue.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ScrewMaster]

Don't worry, you can have your precious GPS. We will manage nicely without it, thank you..

Which comment I'm sure made you feel better, but missed the point of the discussion. The OP was commenting that the BBC should restrict access to outside viewers simply because they haven't paid for it. I was pointing out that the U.S., at least, has offered taxpayer-funded services to the other countries as well, without requiring payment. Actually, quite a few billions of U.S. dollars worth of such services, and frankly some of us are tired of footing the bill, especially when people like you cop an attitude. So I'm sorry if I dinged your ego a little (well, no ... honestly I'm not) but that was neither my intent, nor is your inferiority complex relevant to this discussion.

However, since you brought it up ... get back to me when Galileo is fully operational, and is truly a replacement for GPS. From your linked article, On 30 November 2007 the 27 EU transportation ministers involved reached an agreement that it should be operational by 2013.

We came up with the idea and got it working decades ago, but so far the EU's effort is still a work-in-progress. You're not there yet, so for now you're still dependent upon our precious GPS. Matter of fact, you were only too happy to take advantage of it and I don't recall the EU ever offering to offset the costs.

Personally, I think it's a great idea to have alternatives to GPS: that's a lot of eggs in one basket and civilization is becoming more and more dependent upon such technology. I might add that Russia's GLONASS system looks promising, but they too have a long way to go.

I agree that having everyone dependent upon a system owned by a single country is not the best for everyone. But so far, we're the only ones who have pumped enough billions into it to do the job properly, and yes, we let you use it. For free.

So I think a "thank you" is in order, not piss and vinegar.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't go as far as calling BBC objective - they are professional and they try to balance their views but their news are directed by the current policies and the bottom line as much as the next media organisation. Those forces seem to drive sensationalism more and more these days and BBC is certainly not immune from that bug. But compared to Mr Murdoch's posse they are objectivity epitomised. So if I have to pay to be feed glitzy bs and brainwash dross I'll stick to my free BBC service thank you very much!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would whoever modded me Troll please post log out and post anonymously to explain why?

Because ur short, chubby, and u got craaazy hair.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[abigsmurf]

The Queen is the Australian head of state.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ScrewMaster]

This seems a lot like the time that Accuweather and friends tried to have Santorum, their pet senator, ban the NOAA from providing the public with the weather data they paid for.

That happens on a daily basis as corporations large and small try to buy favors in Congress, and ideally laws the benefit their specific industries. Really, this should be considered treasonous behavior, on both the part of the companies that pay the lobbyists, and the Congresspersons that sell out the people for a few thousand in campaign contributions.

Though, to be fair, the News Corporation is at least an order of magnitude more evil.

In magnitude yes, but not in principle.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with being "pro-Palestinian"? At least they aren't the horrendous cunts that Israelis are.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Zero__Kelvin]

http://www.civilianism.com/gate/2009/06/fox-news-gets-court-ok-to-lie/

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Toonol]

Absolutely true.

You're gullible if you don't think FOX lies and decieves. You're PAINFULLY gullible if you think FOX lies and deceives any more than the other news networks.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[JohnBailey]

That just proves how out of touch with reality America is.

How can you have a "World" series when only one country from the "World" competes.

Because it was named after the company that sponsored it.. The "World" newspaper, as far as I remember. It could just as easily have been the times series or the enquirer series or any other paper you care to mention.

And America wonders why people hate it so much.

We don't hate.. We just point and laugh.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[isa-kuruption]

Right, there's a difference. The difference, in this particular case, is that Fox refused to tell you the truth about the information they were providing you (i.e. that the information was wrong). That proves the distinction right there.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Toonol]

If you consider the BBC left wing, then frankly you consider the British population left wing as well.

Well... duh?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Toonol]

BBC isn't free. Their charges are simply less direct, and not optional. In fairness, it is hard for private industry to compete with a company who's product is illegal not to purchase.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[squiggleslash]

In case there are people who remain unaware of it, Fox News sued and won for the right to lie to you.

With respect, the above comment is completely fair and balanced. By which I mean it's a partisan exaggeration and/or untruth.

The company that sued for the right to fire people for refusing to lie was an owned and operated affiliate of the Fox television network (the network that has brought you such great shows as Dark Angel, Titus, Undeclared, Action, That 80's Show, Wonderfalls, Fastlane, Andy Richter Controls The Universe, Skin, Girls Club, Cracking Up, The Pitts, Firefly, Get Real, Freaky Links, Wanda at Large, Costello, The Lone Gunman, A Minute with Stan Hooper, Normal, Ohio, Pasedena, Harsh Realm, Keen Eddie, The Streak, American Embassy, Cedric the Entertainer, The Tick, Louie, and Greg the Bunny), not Fox News. Fox News, while owned by the same corporate parent as the Fox Television Network, is nonetheless a separate entity, and about the only link the two have beyond being answerable to Rupert Murdoch are that Fox News provides a show called Fox News Sunday to Fox Television.

My understanding is that Fox News doesn't need to threaten its journalists with termination for lying on air, because it doesn't have any real journalists.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Toonol]

What's wrong with being "pro-Palestinian"? At least they aren't the horrendous cunts that Israelis are.

Ah, I see you've been paying attention to the BBC.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[MichaelSmith]

I'm pretty sure nobody in the US or continental Europe gives a crap about cricket.

Not true. The USA has a lot of immigrants from the Caribbean region now and is likely to become a cricket power in the future.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[epine]

If you make zero effort to distinguish faux news from a rigged demonstration, I sincerely hope you aren't investing in any technology IPOs.

Microsoft provided a rigged demonstration of the interdependence of Windows and IE on videotape to the U.S. supreme court. There's what the profit motive gets you.

Neither does a padded resume doesn't render a prospective hire incompetent. In fact, we're often judged negatively for failing to put the best face forward, even if the best face involves creative omission, and the right kind of slant might even be judged a virtue. How else did Microsoft get that video made in the first place? By hiring young missionaries with a George Washington implant?

Dilbert impedes

NBC's "help it roll over" story manipulation was unethical and embarrassing, but hardly worse than what CNN or F/X News accomplishes with deliberate imbalance. I mean, is it even possible to conduct ethical journalism filming from the deck of an operational U.S. aircraft carrier?

How many Americans could correctly answer how many of the 19 hijackers in the September 11 attacks were of Saudi origin?? If less than 50%, that's irresponsible journalism of the highest magnitude. I would take any dart landing in double digits as an essentially correct answer.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Rob Simpson]

Yeah, because they were going to have a test driver zoom around until the SUV rolled, right?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Homburg]

The problem with Biased BBC isn't that they disagree with the BBC; there are plenty of specific criticisms of the BBC you can make in particular cases. The problem with Biased BBC is that their criticisms of the BBC are idiotic. Oh no, the BBC quoted an NHS spokesperson in a story on the NHS! Oh no, a BBC article on tributes to Ted Kennedy after his death mostly quotes people saying nice things about Ted Kennedy! These only count as criticisms of the BBC from an absurd perspective in which the NHS can never be defended and Ted Kennedy is wholly evil. It's not just that these are right-wing criticisms of the BBC; it's that they come from a particular right-wing perspective that is both stupid and completely unrepresentative of the population the BBC serves.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Homburg]

Ha! Actually, -1 cliched would be useful, and could have been all-too-fairly applied to my comment.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[nomessages]

I wouldn't be entirely sure of "nothing." At least TWC doubles as a mighty fine source of jazz if you're partial to that kind of music.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

You're being sarcastic, but you are correct. When it comes to *local* weather the details are left to the TV studios, which is why you can tune to different channels and hear different results (one will say 90 and the other 85 for the predicted high). They provide extra precision that the national forecast does not.

In my area we had a funnel cloud pass through and while the NWS issued the warning, it was the local guy who tracked the storm and told us which specific streets were in danger.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Compholio]

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.

1) In our country a judge is not required to make a ruling solely based upon laws that are on the books.
2) Whistleblower protections also include "threats to the public interest" - which is certainly true in this case.

You, and obviously many judges, forget the purpose of a justice system. The purpose is to meter out justice, not blindly follow a fucking rulebook.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FourthAge]

Noted. I don't personally see Biased BBC in that light and I think they're unfairly pilloried as idiotic. I think they're only trying to give an alternate perspective on BBC reporting. But I agree that Biased BBC does not really represent most BBC viewers, and concede it would have been less controversial to simply link to the relevant wiki page which is what I will do in the future.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. You only have to pay the licence fee if you *actually receive* broadcast material, not if you merely "operate equipment capable of receiving broadcast material".

I own a TV which I use only for my Nintendo GameCube. TV Licensing were hassling me about buying a licence, so I wrote to them telling them why I have the TV, that my house has no TV antenna, and that TV reception using an indoor antenna is impossible in said house due to reception conditions. They wrote to me acknowledging my letter, and then never bothered me again.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[selven]

You may put News Corp. in a different category than The Onion, but that is your problem.

The Onion does not claim to be providing actual news.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[SheeEttin]

Actually, you can just put your ZIP code in the field on the left. That'll take you right to your local forecast.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[jedidiah]

The "World" in World Series refers to a company name, not geography. ...much like the Hanshin Tigers.

Although you're welcome to suggest an alternate global champion
in baseball if you think you can.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Just Another Poster]

In case there are people who remain unaware of it, Fox News sued and won for the right to lie to you.

Untrue.

First, this was a Fox affiliate, not the cable channel.

Second, the two reporters were probably trying to do a hatchet-job on Monsanto. When the Fox station asked them to balance it out with Monsanto's side of the story, they refused, and were fired. They sued under a Florida "whistleblowers" statute, and lost. The court did not decide whether or not the report was truthful. The court did not say that WTVT had a right to lie. The court simply said that no law was broken. There is no evidence that WTVT asked Wilson and Akre to lie.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[artson]

"So I think a "thank you" is in order, not piss and vinegar."

Well then, Thank You!. I could get lost in a phone booth and GPS has saved my tattered old arse a number of times.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[aztektum]

Firefox users can get a search plugin @ http://mycroft.mozdev.org/ for the NOAA forecast.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

To the right-wing mind, helping people is intrusive "big government," but killing people is fine and dandy.

Hope that clears things up.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[theskipper]

Correct, the quotes I placed around the word "free" were intended to show doubt in how the term was used, not as a quotation stating fact. (I think something recursive just happened in that sentence)

Public broadcasting is funded by foundations, member contributions and tax dollars. The tax dollar component is small (15% IIRC) but the one that I'd attack if I were them. Especially since it dovetails nightly with the heavily Republican stance on issues espoused nightly on their news outlets. In this case, removing tax dollars from public broadcasting.

In their universe I could see a talking point similar to this "Our tax dollars are going to fund their operations and they're giving it away for free. Either abolish it or force them to charge all viewers for their content so the taxpayers aren't getting ripped off".

Or something equally inane and biased (imho).

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Following you reasoning, no one from Asia should visit Texas, California or Virginia since they were bought from Spain and/or France some time ago with the (early) USA taxpayer money, which in turn was UK asset before the independence...

Re:Threatening plurality?

[grepya]

And more often than not, highly qualified bosoms.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

>>>hardly worse than what CNN or F/X News accomplishes with deliberate imbalance. I mean, is it even possible to conduct ethical journalism filming from the deck of an operational U.S. aircraft carrier?
>>>

I don't know. Why don't we ask NBC anchorman Matt Lauer who spent a week on an aircraft carrier. POINT - Everyone always picks on FOX News, as if they are somehow soooo much worse than the rest of the channels. But they are ALL biased, mostly in favor of the party the reporters are registered with (D).

Re:Threatening plurality?

[BluBrick]

I'm pretty sure nobody in the US or continental Europe gives a crap about cricket. But sure, the countries with RHD...

Now, normally I'd agree with you, but I imagine that the Dutch have a vastly increased interest in cricket since the day they beat the poms at their own game.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I'd trust the BBC any day of the week over "news" reported by a Murdoch mouthpiece.

I disagree. Not that I have any great love fox Murdoch, but I don't trust the BBC either. They are as slanted as PBS, constantly trying to explain why we need more and bigger government programs. I don't need to hear that bias. Just once I'd like to hear either the BBC or PBS present a story about why government needs to be smaller, but of course that will never happen.

And you know that's the truth. Even when PBS discusses persons like Thomas Jefferson, they conveniently leave out certain facts, like he said citizens should shoot tyrannical leaders. Or that he he said states should nullify unconstitutional laws passed by Congress (per amendment 10). Or that he felt a Central Bank (think Federal Reserve) should not exist, because money == power to influence politicians. Or "When people fear government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty."

PBS very carefully censors what they reveal, in order to continue supporting their "we need more government" viewpoint. Case in point - this morning they interviewed a guy for 10 minutes about why everyone should be pro-government-run healthcare. Never once did they cover the other side.

Slanted. Biased.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[jabuzz]

It has more from India I think you will find, and cricket seems to be on the wain in the Caribbean in favour of athletics.

Cricket is reasonably popular in the Netherlands, heck they managed to beat England in the recent 2009 20-20 World series. Oh the shame; but we beat Australia in the Ashes and that is what really counts. Anyway that is continental Europe, so he is flat out wrong.

The only team sport more widely played is Soccer. I believe around one fifth of the worlds population come from countries where cricket is a major sport.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[DarthBart]

It wasn't just the forecasts that Santorum and crew wanted to lock down. It was *all* of the weather data that is available for free. WSR-88D Radar images, atmospheric modelling outputs, watches & warnings, high resolution satellite images, and quite a bit more. Accuweather wanted everything that is available on both the EMWIN and the NOAAPORT networks to be encrypted and unavailable to anyone who didn't want to pay a bunch of money to Accuweather.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Whine all you want you little asshole, but gov't-funded healthcare is coming, and you are going to help pay for it, whether you like it or not. There is nothing you are capable of saying or doing that will change that. ^_^
>>>

Yes I know.
Because Democrats refuse to listen to
the people's voices that are crying out to stop.

But there IS still something I can do. If Congress follows through on its plan to fine Americans ~$2000 per year for not having private insurance, as Massachusetts already does with its citizens, then I will simply refuse to pay. And if the IRS comes after me, then I will hire a gaggle of lawyers to file a lawsuit - C64_love v. United States. I will NOT bow to an unconstitutional law because *nowhere* does our supreme law give Congress the authority to fine people for not buying a product.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[IonOtter]

While this certainly is informative, I don't suppose we could mod it +1 TMI?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Mr. Underbridge]

I'm not saying the BBC is perfect, but as new sources goes, it's probably up there as being one of the most reliable in the world. Look at the demonstrations in Iran. Without the BBC's Farsi division, the extent of our knowledge of what happened after the election would be far less.

The thing is though, the quality of the BBC isn't at issue. Even if it's great, having only one source of news isn't a good thing. I'm not saying I agree with Murdoch per se, but it is difficult to be in the position of attempting to compete with a state-sponsored entity. It's not hard to see how the state could be in the position of driving out all the competition by undercutting them, and as a result being able to effectively control the news.

It's not that BBC *is* doing that, but that such a situation could go bad.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[clarkkent09]

Both of your points are true but irrelevant. The government provides laws that make it illegal not to pay money to BBC if you own a TV set. That's enough to make Murdoch's point valid, like it or not.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Seriously, the vast majority of the time the convienence of not going to some crappy site and being bogged down by a corporate nightmare of a website, or having to wait for the weather on the TV, greatly makes up for whatever limited insight meteorologists can possibly add.

That's why they are usually pretty young things.
I think it was Mary Poppins who said, "A little T&A with your weather helps the advertising go down."

Re:Threatening plurality?

[dissy]

Each day I find it harder to see the line between 'business' and 'racketeering'

The former is when you have a license from the government (Known as incorporating), and the later does not.
There is no other difference between the two.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I think anonymous was playing troll/straight-man there.
Who really knows the noun without knowing its origins?
It's not like it has really entered the common vernacular like asshat did.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

your choice of "monster" here

Silvio Berlusconi?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

>>>I'd trust the BBC any day of the week over "news" reported by a Murdoch mouthpiece.

I disagree. Not that I have any great love fox Murdoch, but I don't trust the BBC. They are as slanted as PBS, constantly trying to explain why we need more and bigger government programs. I don't need to hear that bias. Just once I'd like to hear either the BBC or PBS present a story about why government needs to be smaller, but of course that will never happen.

You can say what you want about the BBC but they employ people like Jeremy Paxman AKA the last news man with balls. If he lived in the states he'd probably be relegated to some topical comedy show.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Blue Stone]

You also don't need a license to listen to BBC radio. The license fee applies to people using TV receivers. You can stop paying the license fee and continue listening to the radio without fear of consequences and in good conscience.

I knew as soon as the Murdoch junta declared their intent to charge for internet news that the BBC would be attacked in the near future.

Every time I hear those people crying for the end of the license fee, I see the world dominated by those rich media oligarchs like Murdoch and his unholy spawn, and wonder why they seem to think is a desirable alternative.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[TapeCutter]

The poms should be proud of the BBC site, the yanks should be proud of NOAAA/NASA sites. I know I'm proud of Australia's ABC/SBS/CSIRO efforts. If you are going to have state owned media/research, those organisations are excellent exaples of how they should operate. It's more than likely they cost tony-taxpayer less than a subscription to one of Murdoch's rags.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Enter the Shoggoth]

Really? ABC-Disney is the largest? I thought for sure the largest conglomerate was NBC-Universal which owns at least 10 channels in the U.S., an Europe-wide channel, and also various broadcast stations in Australia and Japan. That would make FOX-Murdoch a distant fourth, after the ABC, CBS, NBC oligarchs.

Back to article-

I'm surprised the BBC gives-away free news on the web. They block their radio and television programs from being seen by anyone who has not paid a TV/radio license (UK citizens), so I would expect them to do the same for text. (shrug)

Minor correction: NBC-Universal owns a number of cable channels in Australia, the only relationship with any of the local FTA (broadcast) stations is the occasional sharing of news items.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[dryeo]

One other difference since the days of Al Capone, the racketeers are better at paying their taxes.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Blakey Rat]

Think about it in the world pre-Internet...

The NOAA does the research, gathers the data, and the newsmen report it to the public at large. Back in the day, both of these processes were rather expensive, and so the arrangement worked fine.

But now the Internet comes along-- now writing a method for distributing the NOAA information for free is almost trivial compared to their budget. So they do it. The majority of people buy computers, and suddenly the role of the newspaper and TV station is completely unnecessary.

So the newspaper and TV stations feel like they're being "cut out of the loop."

Re:Threatening plurality?

[4D6963]

And then there's John Stossel over at ABC who admitted his corporate overlords routinely censor his pro-small government stories

Maybe because ABC doesn't give a crap about Stossel's pro-small government agenda/propaganda? What's so amazing about a news network not giving carte blanche to a journalist to push any of the shit he wants? Oh let me guess, you're pro-small government?

Unrelatedly, your sig. Whose arse did you pull that figure from?!?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Rising Ape]

The BBC didn't support any of that. They didn't oppose it either, but it's not their job to advocate one political position over another, but to be neutral and objective. I suspect you're assuming that "not supporting x" is equivalent to "supporting the opposite of x".

From watching the BBC it's rare to see any political opinion of its own at all. Contrast that with reading any newspaper, even the reputable ones, where the political bias leaps off the page.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[dryeo]

That's wrong. I use Environment Canada for getting the local weather and just the other week there was a surprise thunderstorm. Before it arrived there was a big red banner warning of the storm and clicking the banner gave detailed info about where the storm was and speed and direction it was moving.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[internettoughguy]

Damn just ran out of mod points, but well put.

The funny thing is that people don't seem to understand that the BBC charter dictates that they can't biased in their coverage, whereas in practice fox news dictates to their employees that they have to be.

To me fox news is about on a par with Al Manwar, which happens to be banned in the US, fucking hypocrisy.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[internettoughguy]

Did you actually read the Blog? It has jems such as "scale of betrayal of our military by the scum in New Labour", "the central issue - namely that the predominant reason for a booming UK population is due to "foreign born" mothers (Mostly Muslims)", I mean that's going way to far for the Tories, that's BNP territory...

Re:Threatening plurality?

[k10quaint]

PBS very carefully censors what they reveal, in order to continue supporting their "we need more government" viewpoint. Case in point - this morning they interviewed a guy for 10 minutes about why everyone should be pro-government-run healthcare. Never once did they cover the other side.

Slanted. Biased.

The other side of the debate is Miss McCaughey & Co. Since the republicans currently employ the "monty python parrot sketch denial" method for debate, PBS could safely leave them with zero air time on this subject. If you can provide to me one well written thoughtful opinion piece to the contrary that I cannot trivial dismantle by exposing fallacies and factual errors, we can have a debate. The opposition right now is in attack mode, they have no alternative.

FYI, since you play with commodore 64s, you might be getting ready for Medicare. I expect you to decline Medicare coverage when you reach 65. Eat your own dog food IMO.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[k10quaint]

Except for the part where they can modify the constitution to give themselves the authority. I know, I know, inconvenient facts should be left where they cannot damage your arguments. Sorry.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[MsGeek]

Mary Poppins? T&A? WIN. (This was in 1981 before she pruned out.)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[MightyMartian]

I do love conspiracy theories. If you point out evidence that goes against it, it's still evidence for it.

I stand by what I said. The BBC is one of the best and most reliable sources of news out there. News Corp is one of the worst. That doesn't mean the BBC is perfect, but it's in whole other sphere of integrity that Murdoch's crap.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[characterZer0]

"America's Finest News Source"

Re:Threatening plurality?

[PachmanP]

That happens on a daily basis as corporations large and small try to buy favors in Congress, and ideally laws the benefit their specific industries. Really, this should be considered treasonous behavior, on both the part of the companies that pay the lobbyists, and the Congresspersons that sell out the people for a few thousand in campaign contributions.

Never happen! Do you realize how much you'd have to pay to get a law like that passed!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[hondo77]

And then there's John Stossel over at ABC who admitted his corporate overlords routinely censor his pro-small government stories...

Maybe because Stossel, that self-promoting turd, shouldn't be doing advocacy pieces and should be doing, oh I don't know, some journalism perhaps?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Ateocinico]

The BBC is regarded as pro-Castro and pro-Chavez in Venezuela. And always keeps silent when the opposition is repressed or a local radio station is closed by the state. Private media is always biased, Berlusconi being the most notorious example of media abuse for political porpouses. I don't believe any media anyway, so I read as many different versions as possible and then guess and interpolate.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't "we the people", through the power of writing our representatives, lobbying, campaigning, running for office and voting "the people who have the power to close the loophole and keep it from happening again?" Yeah, sorry, for a moment there I thought lived in a representative democracy. Don't worry, I won't let it happen again. But wouldn't that be great if we did? Sometimes hope just doesn't know when to die.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[fremsley471]

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?

The development of the UK weather radar network thru the 80's and early 90's was (apparently) paid for with monies from the water boards, then the recently-privatized water companies. This somehow meant that the data couldn't be released for free for 'commercial reasons' -the current web site images are still spatially degraded. In reality, it meant that private weather services couldn't have free access AND that the MO still charge people like the MoD (who pay most of the bills) for the high-resolution data. Double winner for the 'Trading Company' that is the MO. At one stage they charged ridiculous amounts for historic weather data (whose only use is research). This has improved as climate change became more politically sensitive, and the research councils got their acts together. They still charge for much of interesting real-time data that isn't released under their international obligations. Much to the chagrin of the MO you can also find their synoptic forecasts (&1 a minute fax-back in the UK) on the NOAA website.

Personally, I feel that the middle-to-high order MO management look enviously at the former civil servants in charge of the water boards, regional rail, regional power companies, etc., as these new 'Directors' now sit in their villas paid for by windfall share-options. The MO bosses won't disturb any 'revenue streams' in case a partial or total privitisation of the Trading Company would make their biggest weather-concern which countries to buy their second and third homes.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[blackpig]

Actually Rupert has US citizenship which may or may not mean he has surrendered his Australian citizenship
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/296659.html
Actually most denizens of Oz are quite glad to see the Murdoch clan spending most of their time/energies in the US, BTW, thanks for taking Ken Ham in also

Re:Threatening plurality?

[AmberBlackCat]

In Kansas City, the local weather guys are the best, the National Weather Service is marginally good, and The Weather Channel would be lucky to predict what day it will be tomorrow. I mean, if it's going to rain, Mike Thompson will say it's going to rain. The National Weather Service will say we have a dopplar-indicated thunderstorm. The Weather Channel will tell everybody to board up their windows and stay in their basements until the tornado passes through. And then it rains.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ScrewMaster]

Following you reasoning, no one from Asia should visit Texas, California or Virginia since they were bought from Spain and/or France some time ago with the (early) USA taxpayer money, which in turn was UK asset before the independence...

My reasoning? Did you actually READ my message, as well as the one I was replying to? I was trying to point out that being snippy about keeping foreigners from using publicly available Internet resources is just stupid no matter where you hail from. I guess you didn't recognize my rather sarcastic tone and took me literally.

Cripes.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[AmberBlackCat]

Yes, that's what they tried to do. This was years ago.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ScrewMaster]

To whoever modded me troll ... nice job. Try reading past the first line next time.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[dangitman]

If you believe FOX News is the only channel that lies, then you are easily duped.

I don't recall anybody saying that Fox News is the only channel that lies. However, Fox is (by proxy) a topic of this story, so I don't see it as off-topic to mention that it does. Would you prefer that Fox is not accused of lying at all? That because NBC and ABC also lie, then Fox shouldn't be called out on it?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[dangitman]

but I don't trust the BBC. They are as slanted as PBS,

Wow, that's... that's so... not very slanted at all.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[dangitman]

Because Democrats refuse to listen to the people's voices that are crying out to stop.

Why should they? It's a vocal minority mostly consisting of crackpots. The majority of the people support universal healthcare.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Pumpkin Tuna]

Stossel is a right-wing stooge who pretends to be objective while shoveling skewed facts that support his pre-conceived anti-government bias.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[TheStonepedo]

You don't have to try that hard.
NOAA's website accepts URLS of the form "weather.gov/zip" where "zip" is your zip code.
Save yourself some typing, be lazy!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[hedwards]

The BBC is amongst the most reliable news organizations in the world. News Corp however is owned by people that bribe politicians, lie about ownership and go about lowering the quality of news as far as they can. Rupert Murdoch is quite possibly the worst thing to happen to news ever. His son is apparently the same sort of trash that he is.

Seeing as I live a third of a world away from the UK, I wouldn't be listening to and reading BBC coverage if it wasn't good. Admittedly it covers very little of the local issues, but I don't expect them to do so.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[mi]

Sounds to me like the guy doesn't want plurality, he just doesn't want competition.

Nobody wants to deal with competition — not even yourself, such as when you are courting a girl or applying for a new job. The guy is willing to compete, obviously, and is well positioned to do so, but not against a taxpayer-funded entity...

This, BTW, is similar to what people dislike about "public option" in the proposed healthcare overhaul — that it will either suck rocks (and money) as the US Post Office, or suppress private sector competition as BBC does. Or both...

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Murdoch (elder or junior either one) is probably the poster-child example of why "news for profit" is an utter failure in terms of delivering actual *news* rather than bullshit and lousy entertainment.

What was that argument again about it being impossible in principle for any government to do a better job than private industry? I advise market fans not to use Murdoch as an example of the success of the free market if they don't want to be laughed out of the debate room.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[raind]

We here in michigan call it Foxhole news, the bad thing is that I may still watch it for the weather for a few minutes, other than that Murdoch can go to hell.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't agree more. The BBC is the epitome of independent news, it's not "government owned", it's a legally chartered fourth estate.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the BBC's Farsi division,

That the BBC *has* a Farsi division, and it wasn't scrapped for the Bleach Blonds and Other Assorted Eye Candy division, says something about the quality of the BBC right there.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

right, but then news corp wants to turn around and tell you that they are in a different category than the onion.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Mean Variance]

Pretty impressive list if you did that without looking. You forgot one ... Herman's Head.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[drsquare]

So the BBC is biased towards the British people who pay the licence fee?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[drsquare]

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.

Re: Threatening plurality?

[MartinSchou]

the Reaganite doctrine that a government should not be allowed to do anything that a capitalist middle-man could make a profit on.

I doubt that's a complete doctrine. Where are these privatized police forces in the US? What cities or states enacted this during Regan's time in office?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity.

Compared with most of the world's broadcasters it is. But it does suffer from an internal culture of liberal leftism (shared with much of the media and academia), which allows a lot of unacknowledged assumptions about the nature of the world, about goodies and badies, and about what is sayable in polite society to frame the discussion. Plus (especially on domestic affairs) particular it tends to have a reflex subservience to authority and an 'official' point of view: it avoids party bias, and is careful to give equal weight to both sides when it recognises controversy; but tends to treat statements from government (i.e. civil service), quangos, charities and professional institions as if they were neutral and objective.

Weirdly the BBC World Service, though wholly funded by direct subvention from the state, seems less subject to such biases. Maybe that's because its staff are from all over the world so have collectively a broader perspective; maybe it is that UK audiences don't hear much of it, and so politicians don't bother to put pressure on.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[noidentity]

And as a final step, scroll down to "Additional Forecasts & Information" at the bottom (it's an image), click "Text-Only Forecast", bookmark that page and enjoy the bloat-free goodness.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Dan541]

Just like the "Miss Universe" only has females from one species on one planet.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[noidentity]

And here I, a dumb layman, would have thought that was just a boat and its wake in the water. These people are the experts who can see that it's clearly not that!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

A point of data to support that: they are closing their free evening newspaper in London. Non-London readers can get an idea of the loss to human culture and an informed society that that entails here
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/ (though they should bear in mind this is selected highlights rather than a typical day's product).

Re:Threatening plurality?

[the_womble]

They block their radio and television programs from being seen by anyone who has not paid a TV/radio license (UK citizens)

Wrong on four counts:

1) They block non-UK IPs, there is no check on whether you have paid your TV license or not.

2) There is no such thing as a radio license, so if you do not have a TV (I never have) there is no license to pay.

3) Whether you are a British citizen or not is irrelevant to any of this. Residence would be relevant if the the license had anything to do with it, as it is, it is just there you are located.

4) They do not block radio. I am listening to a Radio 4 stream in Sri Lanka as I write this.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[MJMullinII]

3% == Americans who *want* health insurance but are not covered. A MINOR fix is needed not government monopoly takeover.
-----
100% == Americans who are *overcharged* for the health care they get compared to their neighbors in Europe (regardless of their *opinions* to the contrary).

Re:Threatening plurality?

[laejoh]

I always knew he was a command line addict!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you agree with the original point: Private interests should not be trusted with a legal mandate as the sole providers of news. Long live the BBC.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to say it, but I've met many people from both nations (if you pretend for a moment that Palestine is a nation...), and Palestinians are, and were, always the "nice ones".

Israelis on the other hand were always arrogant, rude, contemptuous of everybody who isn't an Israeli, and just downright unpleasant.

As a Jew, I have to admit that it's plenty embarrassing that I could have such a pleasant time with Palestinians, while hating every second I had to spend in the company of Israelis.

The attitude of Israelis is Israel's worst enemy.

What's that? You're going to mod me down as "troll" and "flamebait" for daring to be critical of Israel? Shocking.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bless public service!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I have always thought that this would open them up for libel cases....

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Truth is life]

It sounds to me like the ECMWF and MET operate the same as U.S. roads. They are Not funded by taxation, but instead funded by tolls charged to people using them. Ditto our post office.

Where have you been living for the last 50 years? Last I checked, most roads in the US are free to use, not tolled. Sure, they're doing a lot more tolled roads now than they used to, but that's because no one wants to pay taxes anymore.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Sorry, posted wrong. Should be a reply to Frequency Domain.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[SausageOfDoom]

Probably because they work for Murdoch, and are merely writing what he tells them to.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Znork]

Just because they don't call it a tax doesn't mean it isn't.

Rather like copyright. Which is also government enforced. And rather damaging to a competitive free market.

The difficulty of getting paid for producing news is due to the simple fact that there is a vast overproduction of it, far more than the readers can consume. The artificial segmentation done by dividing it into 'channels' or 'papers' is undesirable in itself, and Murdoch probably realizes that he's trapped in a completely obsolete niche, and would do anything to get out of there.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the same excuse comes from Microsoft apologists all the time... so, why not? ;)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[mpe]

Likewise it makes sense that BBC news should not be available to non-UK citizens, just as radio and television programs websites are blocked.

HTML dosn't have a field for citizenship. Anyway BBC news and television broadcasts do reach beyond the UK. In the case of the BBC World Service this is deliberate and there'd be little point on having the Shipping Forcast on R4 long wave were this not the case.
This situation existed prior to BBCs dedicated DBS news channel, which covers a big part of Western Europe or just about any BBC programme which someone wanted to listen to/watch being available through bittorrent within minutes.

Non-citizens have not paid the BBC license.

Being able to produce a US (or Polish) passport would not exempt anyone who needed a TV licence :) (Nor would using Noah Webster's spellings for that matter...)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[botik32]

But they are ALL biased, mostly in favor of hiding the inconvenient truth.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FourthAge]

I'm confused, because I know that the BBC is neither neutral nor objective. and the political bias of the people who work for it definitely affects what they say and how they say it. For example. I just can't imagine how you can think that the BBC isn't biased. Do you think the absence of a commercial motive really means they will be fair and balanced about everything? Why, then, do politicians such as David Cameron spend so much effort appeasing them? I know I'm going against the groupthink here, but come on...!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Hognoxious]

But they don't block their TV being seen by people who live in other countries. You can get it on cable in Belgium. You can get BBC radio on a normal set if you live in certain parts of the Netherlands.

If you're talking about iPlayer, you can't get it at all outside the UK.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[david.given]

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."

Re:Threatening plurality?

[selven]

Any reasonable person would see it as a joke after reading a few articles. As for News Corp, they look like a legitimate news source and they are not a humor source - they're just a source of made-up stuff and exaggerated stories about Loch Ness Monsters woven from 20 pixels in a picture,

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Hognoxious]

Yeah, the UK's health rationing system kills people like Stephen Hawking.

As a fellow libertarian, let me say how much I admire James Murdoch. People like him - coming from a humble background to rising to the position he has by his own talents and efforts - are proof that liberals who want to legislate everyone into medicority are just jealous loonies.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[zoney_ie]

Here in Ireland we have a lower TV licence fee. For that we get to have poorly funded pathetic local productions, or good productions that are poorly supported or short-lived because they get few viewers - our national broadcaster although funded by taxpayers, also runs commercial advertising and so operates on semi-commercial basis (i.e. cater to the lowest common denominator). Like most here in Ireland looking for serious TV, I'll stick to watching BBC for free on satellite.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[NeutronCowboy]

Considering that Japan won the World Baseball Classic, I think they have a fair claim to being a better global baseball champion than the US.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[pmc]

Because it was named after the company that sponsored it.. The "World" newspaper, as far as I remember. It could just as easily have been the times series or the enquirer series or any other paper you care to mention.

Not so - see http://www.snopes.com/business/names/worldseries.asp

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Radio 4 doesn't broadcast at 3 am. You're thinking of the World Service.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Where have you been living for the last 50 years? Last I checked, most roads in the US are free to use, not tolled.

If you truly have lived in the U.S. the last 50 years, then you'd know the roads ARE tolled. And the money is collected every time you fill-up with gasoline, and that money funneled directly to the State D.O.T. and the US D.O.T. respectively.

And our post office is funded by the sales of stamps. If you don't send any mail, then you don't pay (at least that's how it's supposed to work).

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

>>> (snip) ...PBS could safely leave them with zero air time... (snip)

So then you admit that PBS is biased in favor of the Democrats/leftists. Thank you for agreeing with me. Oh and the alternative proposed by Republicans is to merely make minor changes to the system we have, such as extending Medicare to the 3% of Americans who want insurance, but are not private or government covered. Simple as that.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

To the right-wing mind, helping people is intrusive "big government," but killing people is fine and dandy.

Hope that clears things up.

Let's be accurate here: killing poor people is fine and dandy.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[rtb61]

That is the real problem a free and independent news service that is, that audited by governments to ensure they tell the truth and when falsities are discovered they are often held accountable.

That is what the Murdoch's hate most of all, truth in the news, they want to package up PR and marketing as the news and the have to gall to sell it to consumers. The really do, as a family, represent the worst of mass media and the drive for greed over the truth. The Faux news network, the network that sued for the right to lie in the news and pretend it is the truth. It must be a really proud family where the lies, deceits and sins of the father are obviously passing on through so the sons, sociopathy is obviously inheritable. If there is one company that should be driven right out of the news business it is definitely the Fox network.

The little lying, rat flocking, weasel is basically saying that the truth is for sale (well at least their version of it) and the government should not affect the price of it by giving away the truth for free. The two main reasons most people will refuse to pay for any version of FOX news;
1) They are the gullible idiots who believe everything that is on it and they are either to poor to pay for it or they are too greedy to pay for it (they emulate the Murdoch's greed)
2) They don't believe the tripe served up by the Fox Network as such it is a complete waste of time to pay for it.

Image the disgusting gall of this ass hat, you don't have a right to know unless you pay for it, flood warnings no subscribe well tough you drown, bushfire warnings don't pay then burn baby burn, tornado warnings if you can't afford to pay for that news then you can't afford a tornado shelter etc. dont' pay for the news then you don't have a right to be informed, warned or alerted to what is going on. The future of 'independent journalism' can best be served by driving arse holes like him out of it.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's not even unusual to hear people on the Radio 1 request show calling from all over the world. Texts & email to the breakfast show from all over the world are such a normal occurrence they get read out just as much as those from the UK. Oh and of course you can get all of the BBC Radio stations on satellite radio in the United States, suitably time-shifted even.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I expect you to decline Medicare coverage

According to that nifty little piece-of-paper the U.S, government sends me every year, I've paid-in about $20,000 to Medicare so when I turn ~70 I'm certainly going to sign up. I want back my twenty thousand dollars. Same applies to SSI. After I've got all my money back that I paid in, then sure I'll drop out. ----- In the meantime I have half-a-million in the bank (and rising), so I can afford to pay for my own ~$200 per year doctor visit. I don't need insurance, either private or government.

Thanks.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

[Insert your favorite ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN repoerter] is a left-wing Democrat-registered stooge who pretends to be objection
but skews facts to support his/her pro-larger government bias.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[drseuk]

The NYPD cricket league (set up partly to encourage positive engagement between law enforcement and citizens) may beg to differ.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

>>>they can modify the constitution to give themselves the authority. I know, I know, inconvenient facts should be left where they cannot damage your arguments.

Inconvenient facts? You mean like this one? I don't see Congress proposing any amendments that would give them power to "fine citizens for not buying X product". Do you? No? Then the power does not exist and the portion of the Healthcare bill that says citizens will be fined is unconstitutional.

For that matter, I cannot find anyplace in the constitution that says "Congress shall...provide health care to the People". That clause does not exist, therefore amendment 10 is in effect - the power is reserved to the States.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[rhendershot]

2) Whistleblower protections also include "threats to the public interest" - which is certainly true in this case.

citation needed.

I read through wikipedia's page on the topic and it would appear this is un-factual (or Fox-like, if you prefer)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[drseuk]

We have Michael Fish and David Icke who are worth every penny of the licence fee for sheer entertainment value alone.

Any10ft tall galactic reptiles invading Slough today are gonna get the bumpiest alien crash landing ever since the forecast is "Sunny with no chance of a hurricane."

All Sky's got is that naked babe from Norway who can't even speak English.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[SteelWing]

Exactly, another point to add is that we shouldn't have to pay for information. I agree I happen to be an American who hates all the news agencies here, have you seen Fox or NBC lately? They really do sensationalize. An example would be an incident last year where a dog found a hand grenade in a woman's backyard. They found out that it was from World War II (being that there are many old air bases here in Florida) and it just wound up there. Bomb squad took it to a demo area and detonated it. Meanwhile, NBC reports it as "Dog digs up grenade in backyard of florida resident, nobody knows where it came from." If thats not sensationalism I don't know what is. Anyway, enough ranting on that subject. I totally agree with what your saying about this guy, he just wants competition. Nothing good has ever come from someone who owns a conglomerate and claims they want justice. If I'm wrong about that then give me a real event that occurred within the last 3 years and I'll take it back. -- Socialism does not exist. Fox just wants you to be afraid.

Re: Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you count as a police force, I guess. I know your prisons are privatized, which strikes me as quite insane - but I don't know under which particular president you started doing that.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC slavishly supports the New Labour social programmes...the NHS

Well of course they do. The vast majority of the population support the NHS. Even Thatcher wasn't stupid enough to go after the NHS. The NHS is one of the third-rails in British politics: if you touch it, you die.

the whole authoritarian anti-terror laws

The BBC were in fact quite critical of the increased detention periods, control orders and various other anti-terror laws.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Ant P.]

ASCII is cheap. Their radio streams are horribly compressed to begin with, so they can afford to allow some of those outside the UK too. The video bandwidth costs would kill them.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

[Shrug] They did the same sort of thing with tide data. The British Hydrographic Office asserted that tide harmonic data was theirs and could not be used by third parties (not the actual daily tide predictions, but the measured parameters that allow you to make a prediction at a particular site -- it's like copyrighting a hill elevation or the phase of the moon on a given day). For that reason the venerable XTide program and derivatives of it went without UK data for a while.

I thought it was pretty funny that one of the most important countries in the world for marine data had the poorest tide predictions, all thanks to the fine work of UK public servants trying to reap a few bucks from scientific data collected with taxpayer dollars decades ago.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[krkoch]

Or, you could use our Norwegian service, yr.no (also in english) to get the weather for any place in the world.

Yeey, socialism!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FireFly9]

That's exactly right!!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're right to put them in the same category.

What they were asked to do was unethical.

Regardless of whether something is 'legal' or, more correctly, not 'illegal' does not obviate anyone from considering the ethics.

This is something that CIA operatives considered (given some refused), that the FBI was concerned about and that many other are concerned about when it comes to torture and gross human rights abuses by US officials.

If the request to do something is unethical, whether it is legal or otherwise is irrelevant to the decision one should take.

Without the ethics, one merely excuses any type of behaviour merely because the government/judiciary has not considered an option before.

Sure you can be sacked - as they were - but they were right to object and refuse. No one is patting News Corp on the back.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing on the BBC news website today about the oil deal that released the Lockerbie bomber. I guess the Oasis breakup is much more important. I don't think you should trust the government for your news.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[mdwh2]

But you could make that argument for any website - "You have to pay the The Times newspaper, so I would expect them to require payment for their website". Instead they rely on ads, just as the BBC does for those it thinks are coming from outside the UK (although sometimes it gets this wrong).

As a licence payer, I want it to be free for everyone. I want the generally-good news coverage to be available for all. And if I see a good article, I want to be able to link it for others to see.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just copied the list from the Family Guy episode that starts with news that FG is canceled to make way for more great Fox shows. Sorry, it wasn't meant to sound impressive, just a reference to a FG.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except on technology (and to some extent, science in general).

The Beeb is widely known not to have the first clue about science and technology.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Khyber]

That proves how out of touch with reality YOU are.

The Toronto Blue Jays (A Canadian team) have played in the World Series and in fact are the first and only outside country to actually win a World Series championship. They are part of the Eastern division of the MLB. It may have been named after "The World" but it still includes teams from outside the USA, just not so much after the Montreal Expos moved to DC.

WHOOPS!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[lilo_booter]

Yup - sounds about right when you consider most of it's coverage of enforced European legislation... Still, as a Brit living in Europe, I still find it a reliable enough service.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

To the left-wing mind, earning money to support your own family is greedy, but enslaving millions to ensure the needs of the State is fine and dandy.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[vivaelamor]

Most Brits like beer, that doesn't mean I should pay for their beer when I don't drink.

Get off your high horse, just because it's a moron talking about the issue doesn't mean the issue is automatically decided. The hilariously ironic thing about what you are saying is if the majority were capable enough for the majority's will to mean squat then it would be a non issue because they wouldn't need the government setting up the BBC for them, they would be capable of choosing the best service for themselves.

I'd rather fight an evil lying bastard like Murdoch on his own turf than be restrained by someone who thinks the BBC is the best service possible.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Tycho]

That was the plan for the NOAA, more or less.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived a few other places in europe and asia, and I breath a sigh of relief when I come home. Spanish, French, Malaysian, Singaporean, Hong Kong, German, Chinese - it's all diabolical stuff - gameshows, reality TV, and the glossiest of glossy news (with added pictures of dead bodies)

My only complaint is that I can't pay the license fee while abroad and easily access iPlayer (properly - not via nefarious means) because I absolutely would.

No-where else in world produces Top Gear and Gardener's World, bizarre humour (This is Klang for instance, or The Young Ones historically), and serious reporting, plus all the radio I can cram in my ears and all advert free. It's absolutely fantastic, and easily worth the tenner a month I pay for it.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Chris Tucker]

And if you want to know the weather conditions to a finer degree than just looking out your window RIGHT NOW, then how do all their "prestigious awards" and whatnot benefit you? If you've a desire to know the local conditions, will your local station bring them to you via one of their "whirlybirds"?

Your local newsmuffins have a direct feed from the NWS. They'd be stupid if they didn't.

And now, via the NWS site, so do you.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[AmigaMMC]

Exactly! BBC News website is the first one I read every morning because of they way news are written, stating facts rather than opinions. I wouldn't even dream of touching Fox "News" with my 9 inch pole.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Chris Tucker]

"It wasn't just the forecasts that Santorum and crew wanted to lock down. It was *all* of the weather data that is available for free."

You forgot to mention that Accuweather is based in Pennsylvania and that Accuweather laid a hefty campaign contribution on Santorum.

Shortly thereafter, Accuweather asked Santorum to do their dirty work for them and lock down all the NOAA/NWS info that they were just giving away to the taxpayers for free.

Really, Santorum's pandering towards Accuweather was shameful, even for an ethics-free Republican.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Cheech Wizard]

Touche' and correct. I don't have any mod points right now or I'd mod you up on this.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FourthAge]

Well of course they do. The vast majority of the population support the NHS.

You've got the causal relationship the wrong way round. The BBC supports the NHS, therefore any attempt to criticise it means instant death, no matter how justified the criticism might be.

The BBC were in fact quite critical of the increased detention periods, control orders and various other anti-terror laws.

Quite critical? And that was good enough, do you think, on such an important issue? More like a bit of token criticism to give the impression of independence. The BBC could have ruined the careers of everyone involved with that sorry authoritarian mess, but they didn't. I wonder why.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point, I'm inclined to think that if the press isn't going to do their jobs right, they shouldn't be given any special privileges.

Please reconsider your definition of press.

That alone might help fix your predicament.

I already have. I classify it nowadays as "entertainment", which has nothing whatsoever to do with informing the public. In addition, I find that there are many more enjoyable programs available on television than the nightly "news".

Re:Threatening plurality?

[SugoiMonkey]

One country, perhaps, but definitely an ethnic/racial diversity of players that would put any other (to my knowledge) single country to shame.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FourthAge]

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[nobaloney]

input your city and state.

Then, at that next page, input your ZIP code.

Save your typing and your clicks... at that first page, where you're asked for city and state, just enter your zipcode. It works!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[k10quaint]

20 grand should just about cover 1 ambulance ride and 1 emergency room visit if you break a bone. A stroke, heart attack, serious car accident, any form of cancer would wipe out that little nest egg you have in 2 weeks flat. Then you would be broke and still have no health insurance. Thank you for illustrating why nobody should listen to you about health insurance.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Cheech Wizard]

But they are ALL biased, mostly in favor of the party the reporters are registered with (D).

Right. All the Faux News people are "D's".... ;)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ScrewMaster]

"So I think a "thank you" is in order, not piss and vinegar."

Well then, Thank You!. I could get lost in a phone booth and GPS has saved my tattered old arse a number of times.

Yeah, me too. I have a wonderful sense of misdirection. And you're welcome.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[k10quaint]

When you conflate 47 million uninsured with 9 million who "want" insurance, sure Issa's bill makes a little bit of sense. It wasn't extending Medicare it was extending the FEHBP to cover them. SEC. 8925 of HR 3438 says that non-federal employees have to pay the entire premium, which is a problem for the poor since there is no way in hell they could afford it. There is nothing wrong with making this plan available to non-federal employees if they want to pay for it, it just doesn't solve the problem of health care for poor people.

FYI, we pay for the uninsured health care already, when they show up to the emergency room. Only, when it is a chronic condition like diabetes it now costs 100 times as much to treat the disease with insulin than if they were detected as a borderline diabetic and could control it with diet. If they don't treat it with insulin, it will cost 10000 times or more since they will be getting ambulance rides with the following conditions: heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, blindness, and nerve & circulatory damage that can require amputation. Since 24 million americans have diabetes, it is kind of a problem if 2 million of them never see a doctor about it.

I know I will never convince you, but others who read this will be.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Cheech Wizard]

Because Democrats refuse to listen to the people's voices that are crying out to stop.

In short, the democrats are listening to the majority rather than a small group of loud mouthed babies (republicans).

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Random Destruction]

I'm surprised the BBC gives-away free news on the web. They block their radio and television programs from being seen by anyone who has not paid a TV/radio license (UK citizens), so I would expect them to do the same for text. (shrug)

They don't block radio. They've been running BBC World Service since '32. Sadly they dropped the transmitters to North America (where I am) in 2001, but the rest of the world can still pick up BBC over shortwave.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[AmiMoJo]

I think many people misunderstand reporting the facts and putting forward both sides of an argument as being biased.

Just because the BBC reports "X Palestineans died in an Israeli helicopter attack" does not make them pro-Palestinean. That's just what happened.

Reporting that the Israelis claimed the attacks were against people firing mortars in to Israel does not make them pro-Israeli, that's just reporting what the people involved said.

When a reporter puts that point of view to a Palestinean leader, that is not the BBC supporting the Israeli position, it's merely asking for a reaction to it.

Person saying something != person supporting that view. It is actually possible that they are merely reporting it or playing devil's advocate.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[infolation]

Free news is in some ways like free OSS.

Because there aren't commercial interests involved in its production, the production process is more transparent, and there's less chance of it being secretly messed around with by nefarious parties.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The BBC is completely impartial. I've watched and seen news broadcasts in other countries and they are shockingly biased, BBC news is far ahead of any other news media for impartiality and quality.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

i live in the home of Murdoch, Australia.

its long been known here that Newscorp is more news/drama than news.

for example:

REAL STORY: man parks suv in disabled park

NEWSCORP STORY: heartless fiend power slams helpless cripples walking frame with his kitten-killing ozone-depleting monster truck

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

The legality of the situation is not the issue. The fact that they claim to be a 'News' organization and will lie (different than being biased) is completely and utterly unethical.

And no, you should not put it in the same category as The Onion. The Onion is an obvious satire and is not meant to be taken as real news. Whereas, Fox News, and all of News Corp. for that matter, portray themselves as a legitimate news source, and have no underlying tone of satire, unlike The Onion.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[bhiestand]

I agree with that, which is precisely why I think attacking News Corp. for it in the public sphere, not legislative changes, is the right course of action. Publishing false news, even knowingly, is legal. But companies that do so should also be widely exposed as doing so, so nobody takes them seriously as news providers.

While we both agree with the courts that knowingly publishing false news is legal, why does that mean we shouldn't make it illegal? Isn't it, at the very least, misleading/false advertising? I'm fine with people publishing lies, but not with them claiming they're non-fiction. Make them rename it to "Fox Entertainment" or "Fox Fictional News", and they can say whatever they want... just so long as everybody's clear that Fox is intentionally falsifying their news.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[JAlexoi]

purpose of a justice system

Depends on the Legal System.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[JAlexoi]

Apparently, big government, impacts the efficiency of killing people. So everything seems just logical.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[bhiestand]

3% == Americans who *want* health insurance but are not covered. A MINOR fix is needed not government monopoly takeover.

Your sig is hilarious. Where do you find this drivel?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[bhiestand]

Yes, clearly PBS has destroyed the free market for television in the US. Woe is us.

Well, Moyers Journal has certainly put the rest of the US news shows to shame.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[JAlexoi]

And yet, I personally see BBC as the one station that actually drills both sides well. Sure, most of the time it drills from the point of view of UK, but still it's better than CNN or any other US network.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Ocker3]

big lols, a quick glance at the photo (the main part of which is supposed to be 64 feet long), looks Darn like a boat, with wake effects to the back and rear quarters. slow news day/week?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please... Yeah, you really cleared things up there.

I am a right leaning libertarian, if I must be defined. I don't believe in stealing money from people to give to others (which I imagine is something you support). We have charity, which is something I DO believe in.

I do not believe in killing others unless it is in direct self defense - that means someone is actually attacking you. I therefore disagree with either of the wars we are currently involved in. I might add, the 'left-wing' minds that are currently in power are increasing our troop presence in one of the wars. So, what exactly is 'right-wing' and 'left-wing'?

Really, just labels used to polarize the public so they don't join forces to expel the crooks, liars, and thieves that are currently attempting to rule our country.

Please stop being an idiot.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

you haven't seen bias until you've watched fox news; so shoosh

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Fluffeh]

Or more often than not, too sensationalistic or too "fluffy."

What have you got against being Fluffy? @_@

Re:Threatening plurality?

[internettoughguy]

fascist.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[mjwx]

It's only advertising-free in the UK, just like their TV channels. (Though to be fair, their web ads are at least reasonably discreet; the ones on BBC World News - which I've watched a fair bit of over the years as I've been traveling - are much more annoying.)

The Beeb makes a lot money on DVD sales and re-selling shows to foreign networks, it also operates paid for news and editorial channels (BBC World is not news thus the BBC does not market it as such) in foreign nations not here in Oz, thanks to Mr Murdoch having a monopoly on pay TV but I see BBC News and BBC world a lot on Asian pay TV (Cable for the septics). In Australia we have the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, our version of the BBC) which has a program sharing agreement with the BBC.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

All Sky's got is that naked babe from Norway who can't even speak English.

You speak as though any of that beyond "naked babe" actually mattered =)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Lemmy Caution]

I used to believe that, too. But it's wrong, an urban legend.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Svartormr]

Really, Santorum's pandering towards Accuweather was shameful, even for an ethics-free Republican.

Indeed. He should have held out for more...lubricant.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Svartormr]

...the racketeers are better at paying their taxes.

...and getting their taxes reduced before they even pay them.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ThePromenader]

Hmmm - should we compare fox "news" to "the Onion" then? I must admit that I do grin at the parallel between the two, but the ruling in the case, guided by the Fox lawyers, conveniently gleaned over the intent of the misleading. The Onion misinforms to generate a "wtf?" cognition reaction in its audience, whereas Fox's intent is to purposely feed selective information to the largest customer base of its corporate sponsors and allies.
 
Fox news: Keep 'em dumb; keep 'em buying.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Geminii]

It's easy to remember - 'business' is government approved.

Like waterboarding!

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC is free to receive by satellite, unblocked, unencrypted, un-DRM-ed.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[vivaelamor]

Technically, the BBC is neither government owned nor taxpayer funded.

Let me quote from very article you linked to: "The licence fee is classified as a tax, and evasion is a criminal offence.", perhaps the technicality is that you are blind. I just wish they would treat it as a real tax in actually getting a warrant before they threaten to search peoples houses. While it is technically a tax I don't think it should be afforded that status as long as the enforcers can't even be trusted to show the same level of conduct expected of private bailiffs.

but the government doesn't handle or distribute the funding

Sorry but the license fee set by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, collected by a subcontractor of the BBC and paid into the consolidated fund (government bank account), before being portioned to the BBC by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in the annual Appropriation Act.

In fact, quoting AGAIN from the very article you linked to: "Funds are then allocated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation".

That you, who can't even read your own sources properly gets modded informative just causes me to despair.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[makomk]

Well, the Labour party has recently been criticised for having a pro-Rupert Murdoch bias, and I know which I'm more worried about. (After all, Rupert Murdoch controls how a huge chunk of the populace perceive the Government through his ownership of a whole swathe of the news sources that people use.)

Re:Threatening plurality?

[ta bu shi da yu]

Well colour me impressed.

Truly, a cosmopolitan makeup you have there. *snicker*

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Stuart Gibson]

It is classified as a tax, but, since it isn't collected for the government it technically isn't one. The government doesn't handle or distribute the funding. For complicated reasons the money goes into the government account and the exact amount is then "voted" on as the amount to give to the BBC who then allocate as they see fit. It is a rigmarole to keep the BBC accountable.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[FourthAge]

I am offended.

I do not look forward to an Islamic-dominated Britain, since under Sharia law, I will not be permitted to work or own property, and I will be forced to go everywhere under a burqa.

"A Handmaid's Tale" is reality now in Iran, and could be reality in future Britain as well. The women of my grandmother's generation fought hard to win us legal equality to men, and now far-right religious conservatives threaten to take that away and bring us back to the dark ages.

The "liberals" at the BBC, and in the population at large, say nothing. They are afraid of being called "fascists" just for speaking the truth. They are willing to tolerate any human rights abuse rather than be "Islamophobic". If they would only speak about these problems and challenge the issue of Britain's divided society, that would be something. But they are cowards. They condemn us all to a dark future in which are no liberals, there are no women's rights, and there are no beliefs but Islam.

It should be obvious to you that I strongly oppose fascism. But feel free to carry on painting me as a BNP supporter or whatever, because it's dangerous to think for yourself these days.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[vivaelamor]

Rotfl. Such incongruity should be noted for posterity. Let me try and get this straight.

It is classified as a tax

This is true.

since it isn't collected for the government it technically isn't one.

Firstly, if it is classified as a tax then that is evidence that it is technically a tax. Secondly, what do you mean by 'for the government'? It is given to the government, if you mean it is then given to the BBC that does not mean it isn't a tax it just means it is a certain kind of tax.

The government doesn't handle or distribute the funding.

This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.

For complicated reasons the money goes into the government account and the exact amount is then "voted" on as the amount to give to the BBC who then allocate as they see fit.

The reasons aren't complicated at all, it is paid to the government because they set the fee.

It is a rigmarole to keep the BBC accountable.

That has nothing to do with whether it is a tax or not.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with most news sources isn't usually political bias. At the end of the day, it's actually quite difficult to report most news (that doesn't concern either politics itself or wars) with any kind of significant political bias.

BUT, the position they occupy along the axis of news-as-entertainment vs. news-as-information makes a huge difference to quality. In this respect, the BBC is certainly better than most of the US networks, most of the time. But if you compare the quality of their print reporting vs. even much of the (non-tabloid) Murdoch press, it's atrocious - despite being far better funded. In this respect, I have to say it offers very poor value for money.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the BBC's business news coverage. It's abysmal, because it panders far too much to the "news-as-entertainment" philosophy. They put a consumer "spin" on every story, they overhype and sensationalise all the stories, they ignore important day-to-day reporting (large but non-public-facing companies are almost ignored for example), and they oversimplify everything. The sensationalism is there to the extent that they arguably CAUSED the first run on a British bank in decades.

I'd also add that people who want to see the BBC privatised largely want to do so because they see it as no longer providing something which the market wouldn't otherwise provide. It spends large amounts on buying in programs and talent who would otherwise appear on other broadcasters anyway, for example. I don't think political bias really comes into it - all news organisations inevitably will have a political bias. To pretend that the BBC can somehow operate outside of this reality is a form of propoganda in itself.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather fight an evil lying bastard like Murdoch on his own turf than be restrained by someone who thinks the BBC is the best service possible.

The problem is you wouldn't have a chance. The BBC might not be the best service possible, but given anything from the likes of Murdoch as an alternative, the BBC is the best service available. Don't throw that away. What you'd end up with without it is much, much worse.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[tuxgeek]

Great site! Thanks for the laugh
Definition of Santorum: "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

Re:Threatening plurality?

[tuxgeek]

Damn, I love being an American represented by highly revered public figures such as these!

Santorum once again:
1: A foul-smelling, frothy mixture of fecal matter and semen that dribbles from a male partner's raw, tumescent anus after sodomy and dribbles down his testicles like so much chocolate syrup and mayonnaise.

2: Biting, pejorative term used to describe a plutocratic, homophobic theocrat; a component of the radical right who embraces tax cuts for the rich, social spending cuts for the poor, anti-gay legislation in every conceivable form and adherence to the strictest tenets of the Christian right.

3. Last name of U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerry likened to the innermost part of the posterior and who President shit-for-brains referred to as "inclusive."
Upon entering the darkened room, I noticed Reverend Falwell's eyes rolling wildly in his head, his gentle whimpers undulating in response to the savage pounding his prostate was undergoing. Then, all at once, he let out a long, melodic sigh and began to gently cry. It was all he could do after taking it in the ass by Rick Santorum.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[jotaeleemeese]

I am really fucking tired about this.

There is no single party in the UK that at some point or another hasn't accused the BBC of bias. From the far left loonies of the Respect party to the neo fascists racists in the BNP, all of them whine about the BBC not paying attention to their respective points of view.

Listen to Lord Mandelson in any interviews and you know he has nothing but contempt for the BBC.

What distorters of the truth like you never mention is the many cases in which the BBC has hounded the current Labour government for its many failings. If they were the pushers of "politically-correct left-wing viewpoints", they would continue their task, irrespective of who is the government of the day. That you yourself imply that the BBC point of view actually changes with the times is an indictment about how little control a sector of the British political spectrum has of the BBC. I am sure you will not notice this monumental contradiction in your lame arguments.

Finally, I want to hear what people like you have to offer to the political discourse instead of what you term "political correctness". Normally the only thing you have to offer is low level racism, homophobia and misogyny trying to make that pass as something the UK should be aiming for.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[vivaelamor]

Care to back up your assertion with something of substance?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[commodore64_love]

Why do people always exaggerate healthcare costs?

One ambulance ride + ER visit == 20,000??? Hardly. My brother's wife had surgery AND spent 3 nights in a private room, and the whole thing only cost $13,000.

My father had an outpatient pacemaker install, and it cost only $6000. Later when he needed an ambulance visit to his home, it was a mere $60.

Re: Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you count as a police force, I guess. I know your prisons are privatized, which strikes me as quite insane - but I don't know under which particular president you started doing that.

According to Wikipedia, there have been privately run prisons in the US since the end of the Revolutionary War. However, it appears that they weren't very common until the mid-1980's, so that would be during Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[internettoughguy]

Fine, be offended, but I thought that picture was one you were painting of yourself.

To be honest I know where I stand fairly well on the issue of freedom of religion, and I view any tempts to quell it as fascism. (whether those sources are Leninist, Islamofascist, or whatever other fascists there are) Even if half the UK population were Muslim, the result would be no worse than say, Lebanon, which if it weren't for Israel, would be a damn site nicer place to live than Britain. If you think Britain's going to get sharia law, then you have been paying to much attention to certain clergy.

The second part of this issue, and i'm the one who's going out on a limb here, is the issue of immigration, I view with some contempt the idea that _anyone_ should have the birthright to anything, let alone to occupy a chunk of land. I think if we opened the floodgates we would solve %90 of the worlds religious, cultural and political problems in one fell swoop.

Re:Threatening plurality?

[jedidiah]

Considering that this is little more than an exhibition compared to any of
the more well established championships (national or global), it doesn't
really prove much of anything.

Any of the AL/NL teams are still likely to clobber any of the Japanese league teams.

That's ultimately what is implied by "the World Series Champion".

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like competition is EXACTLY what he wants. Why should some news provider be able to tax you for his service?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

So don't watch it. The topic is about access. Why should government have a monopoly on information--free, cheap or otherwise? Who watches the watchers?

Re:Threatening plurality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Eldon. Keep it up. See you soon ...

Big Shit Eatin' Grin

it's not free

[prettything]

it is not free, it is paid for upfront via the license fee. the man is a yellow squirt of idiot.

Re:it's not free

[Bralkein]

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).

Re:it's not free

[MightyMartian]

And I don't need to pay to read my neighbor's newspaper, or watch Fox News at my buddy's place.

Re:it's not free

[prettything]

i like the licence fee , i was more incensed that the little oik murdoch was implying the bbc was free and the like, when he knows this not to be the case. my point being that the bbc pays its Way by being paid for up front. and i think its fair to call him as i did, his statement is deceitful.

Re:it's not free

[pbhj]

If you're in the UK and pay taxes then you're paying part of the 300million GBP they get on top of the license fee, so it's not quite free. I guess it's free if you consider that I can read Murdoch's newspapers free online (ad supported but run at a loss it seems) or at my local library (tax payer paid as the BBC offerings are).

Re:it's not free

[xkcdFan1011011101111]

The BBC also makes money off ads. They make money when lots of users view their website.

Re:it's not free

[Bralkein]

I suppose so but I guess £5 per person per year (£300 mil / 60 mil people) isn't really the same as £140 per year or however much it is for a licence these days. If Murdoch promises to only charge £5 a year then maybe I'll agree with him after all ;-)

Re:it's not free

[clarkkent09]

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).

Imagine that you are living on a small island with a population of 10 people and you make s statement that those things must be available to you for free, as a matter of "right", even if you don't contribute absolutely anything to providing them. Consider how inconsiderate, and indeed unjust, that would be to the other 9 people who are now burdened with providing you with education, books and news (anything else you'd like to add?) while getting nothing in return. Those thing don't grow on trees you know, in fact they are very expensive. If you are getting them for free, that simply means that somebody else has to pay for them.

Re:it's not free

[AubergineDream]

In the UK there are no adds - it's ad free, just like the telly and the radio. If the lord of the rings is on and it's 3 hours long you better go to the loo beforehand (or learn to cross your legs). I love the BBC - worth every penny - if Murdoch were to get his way it wouldn't be the same. For just over a tenner a month I get ad free TV, radio and websites. I couldn't get this at the same quality on the 'free market'. I do like channel 4 news though, although quality public service broadcasting 'lifts up the standards of the other services).

Re:it's not free

[Anonymous Coward]

The "10 people" argument is just a poorly correlated hypothetical scenario. If we were on an island with 10 people, why would I ask for a school? If I'm on a island with an organized government and a population of 10,000,000,000, the request is sensible and proper, if still debatable.

"If you are getting them for free, that simply means that somebody else has to pay for them"
      The first parent statement is incorrect anyway. The services are not free if they are served through public funding since the visitor pays the fees anyway. The fact you chose the argument you did shows you have an axe to grind in the first place.

Re:it's not free

[clarkkent09]

The "10 people" argument is just a poorly correlated hypothetical scenario. If we were on an island with 10 people, why would I ask for a school? If I'm on a island with an organized government and a population of 10,000,000,000, the request is sensible and proper, if still debatable.

The point was to illustrate the fact that other individuals have to provide their work to create those goods and services and hence (unless those individuals are slaves) they cannot be free. People tend to forget about that when the cost is spread among 300 million people. Nobody sensible can argue that there is a purpose for the government and that there are things it can do that are beneficial, but when someone starts making lists of things that should be free as a matter of right (see new deal for example) they are usually the kind of person who can benefit from such a simplified illustration.

Re:it's not free

[sumnerp]

I can read Murdoch's newspapers free online

You can at the moment but Murdoch senior has announced that he intends to charge for all his online news sites. Murdoch junior realises that this strategy will only be successful if other news sources follow along. This plainly won't happen with the BBC so their unwelcome completion needs to be eliminated by political means.

Re:it's not free

[Anonymous Coward]

Education and libraries are not free, idiot. When you get charged $3000 a year for property tax, there's your 'free' education.

Re:it's not free

[Bralkein]

I don't think anyone is disputing that people have to pay for these things. I pay taxes, but I don't really mind since I'm paying to sustain public services that I find valuable, even if I don't necessarily use them. To ensure that everyone has a good basic quality of life and the opportunity to improve themselves it is necessary in my opinion to outline some basic services to which people should have free access. If you disagree, then fine, that's your right, but try and refrain from comments like this:

when someone starts making lists of things that should be free as a matter of right (see new deal for example) they are usually the kind of person who can benefit from such a simplified illustration.

Well thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to educate me. Of course because I don't subscribe to your worldview that makes me an ignorant dullard who needs things explained at such a rate as they won't outpace my slow wits. </sarcasm>

Re:it's not free

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, nothing the BBC produces is free - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/. Interestingly, people of Britain are actually paying 61 pence a month towards all the bbc's online services, most of which are freely available to the rest of the world. I would imagine that most of that covers iplayer, but even if that weren't the case I have no problems with paying for the rest of the world to view the bbc website.

Also, I can't find any citations right now, but it is also possible to pay for a radio license. You can also still purchase black and white tv licenses, which cost about half the price of a colour one.

Re:it's not free

[infolation]

Thing is, the 'Digital Britain' report says the BBC licence fee has to be shared with news rivals, for example ITN News.

Not sure what Murdoch's bleating about, his organisation should be in line for some of this money too.

Re:it's not free

[clarkkent09]

To ensure that everyone has a good basic quality of life and the opportunity to improve themselves it is necessary in my opinion to outline some basic services to which people should have free access.

Well, that brings me back to the hypothetical island with ten people. What kind of magical rule is there in the universe that "ensures everyone has a good basic quality of life"? There is only one thing that provides that quality of life and that is the work of individual people. If, say, five of those ten people don't contribute anything, then you are placing the burden on the other five to support them. Can the first five sue the second five if they don't receive good enough quality of life for free (since that is their right)? How about nine out of ten, or for that matter all ten? It is easy enough to show that a general system where such services are a "right" on a par with other human rights is physically impossible and even where it happens to be possible (e.g. in societies where the productive just happen to produce enough for the unproductive too) I would say it's unjust to force the productive to serve the unproductive. Of course, voluntary charity is a different matter but that's not what we are talking about. The same principle applies to larger societies.

One good thing about Murdoch

[Anonymous Coward]

He's old, so he should die soon.

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[MadCat221]

He's old, so he should die soon.

Rupert, maybe. But his son James here is only in his mid 30s. Like father, like son. We will be cursed with a Murdoch for some time... We can only hope that Jimmy here has only daughters and they go Paris Hilton and becomes a useless heiress. I'd rather have a blonde bimbo than a malignant media mogul.

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[Jeek Elemental]

Malignant Media Mogul is a pretty kick-ass title tho. As a group they go by M&M&Ms.

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[ClosedSource]

Paris Hilton was never really an heiress unless you define it as any woman who inherits money from their parents.

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[techno-vampire]

I don't know what definition you're using, but most people define heiress that way.

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[Anonymous Coward]

Err... he's only 36.

Quite some time to go yet.

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[Zontar The Mindless]

Not that I'm defending Paris Hilton (I don't really care about her one way or the other), but since that's exactly how the word "heiress" is defined, she qualifies.

Whether or not she's an especially nice or admirable person is debatable, but this has absolutely no bearing her status as an heiress.

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[ClosedSource]

So the press should refer to any woman who stands to inherit anything from her parents (even $1) an heiress, not just Paris Hilton

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[techno-vampire]

Probably not, although they wouldn't be wrong if they did. Most of the time, of course, the term is reserved for those inheriting large amounts of money, and by that standard, Paris Hilton seems to qualify.

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you define it as any woman who inherits a shit-ton of money from their parents?

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[ClosedSource]

Technically she would inherit from her grandparents. Her parents are well-off but not that wealthy.

Re:One good thing about Murdoch

[commandlinegamer]

The point of describing her as an heiress, is she doesn't have a career or other vocation to define herself.

Symmetry

[mbone]

That's OK, I criticize James Murdoch's News Corporation for providing false news.

I know which I would rather not be accused of.

Re:Symmetry

[Roger W Moore]

I criticize him for being inconsistent too. He manages to compete with the BBC when it comes to broadcast television where the BBC is "free" so why should it be different on the web? The BBC site is funded by advertising outside the UK, not the license fee, so they are competing on an equal footing. If the BBC can make money off their site - or at least keep it revenue neutral - then why can't Murdoch?

Re:Symmetry

[elashish14]

No biggie, it's ok to lie on the news.

http://www.civilianism.com/gate/2009/06/fox-news-gets-court-ok-to-lie/

Re:Symmetry

[jadavis]

That's a separate argument.

The criticism of the BBC is that it has an unfair advantage in the UK marketplace for news, and that may lead to a single organization with too much control over the news -- which some people think has happened already.

Fox News doesn't have any advantage over others in the marketplace at all -- they don't even have a broadcasting license. They simply attract a lot of viewers.

Every major news outlet that I'm aware of has biases and journalistic integrity problems. They bury stories, leave important information out of stories, mislead, outright lie, don't research (or care about) the facts, strongly imply what they want you to believe when the facts are too flimsy to say it, etc. Or, my personal favorite "but critics say..." -- no, the reporter is saying it, but they just want to put their opinion on the news page.

Don't look at the problems only on one side. Next time there's a Dan Rather out there, we need to make sure that there are enough people with interest in discrediting his bad report and that they have a platform from which to speak. Otherwise, it'll just become a "well-known fact" that nobody will question.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

I can summarise most peoples' response to this: Ahahahahahahahahaha

AC Criticizes Slashdot For Providing "Free Frosts"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hugh G. Rection writes

"Slashdot's Rob Malda says that a 'dominant' AC threatens independent first posters in the UK and that free first posting PHP scripts provided by the AC made it 'incredibly difficult' for private individuals to get their own frosties. 'It is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a first post can be obtained by those who value it,' says Malda. 'The expansion of state-sponsored first posting is a threat to the plurality and independence of AC's everywhere.'

As a company

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:As a company

[MightyMartian]

News Corp should NOT be listened to as an expert on what will produce 'Fair and Balanced' news...

More to the point, News Corp should just not be listened to at all. Murdoch has produced a sort of intellectual circle jerk for extremist conservative types. It has all the journalistic integrity of a two-bit whore on the Interstate at 5am.

Re:As a company

[jesset77]

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's the pot calling the paper towels black.

Re:As a company

[Landshark17]

"[News Corp] are the evilness that Microsoft only aspires to."

And Microsoft's is the market share that News Corp only aspires to.

Re:As a company

[jadavis]

As it is, I think the Murdochs are just upset that a REAL news group keeps them from controlling the news. They want power.

I don't think that criticism entirely makes sense -- normally something like that would be said of a declining (or stagnating) power. Fox News has ascended in power recently, and appears to still be on an upward trend.

There are plenty of things to criticize Fox News about, but I don't think jealousy is one of them.

Re:As a company

[phantomfive]

It's not really jealousy, it's lust for power. The Wall Street Journal was a respectable, good newspaper, and Rupert Murdoch chased it for a long time before finally getting it. Any news source that seems good or respectable, he wants. He has no way to compete against of buy the BBC, so he will try to destroy it. He wants to control what people think and see.

Re:As a company

[Anonymous Coward]

So if News organization was great would his argument be valid?

The argument is if "it is a good idea for your taxes to fund news."

It doesn't matter if BBC is great and News Corp sucks. The principle here is what we should be talking about.

What if News Corp was great with ultra-liberal views and BBC was ultra-conservative? A lot of opinions I am reading here would change.

Re:As a company

[k10quaint]

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.

You might not be able to say anything else, but I can QUOTE you and then laboriously collect pebbles and present them to you as a penguin would to his mate!

Seriously, News corp is trash. I am about to drop my subscription to the Wall Street Journal because I am finding too many factual errors and biases in their business news.

Re:As a company

[phantomfive]

Isn't it the truth? WSJ was such a great newspaper, then they started putting color pictures on the front page, and it's been all downhill since then. Now Karl Rove writes editorials. That wouldn't be so bad in and of itself, since frankly speaking he is the one of the best in the world at what he does, in theory he could write some awesome political analysis, but all he ever writes are anti-Obama or anti-Hillary diatribes. Pathetic.

Re:As a company

[m2f2]

It seems you're talking from another planet. Here in Italy the non-Berlusconi controlled news are Murdoch's SKY (pay channel), RAI 3 (soon to be "moderated" by Berlusconi cronies) and LA7 (controlled by Telecom Italia).
For me, I did what my grandfather did -- in the 1940s he listened to the BBC to know what was really going on.
--
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Ultimate irony

[Joe Jay Bee]

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

[characterZer0]

That is not irony. It is simply unbiased, objective reporting.

Re:Ultimate irony

[Joe Jay Bee]

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.

Re:Ultimate irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the BBC.

Murdoch's an idiot. Just another out of touch, upper echelon, power crazed, moron (and a senile geezer to boot). Nobody's going to pay for his crap when you can get news and reports and stats all day long over the net.

Re:Ultimate irony

[TheRaven64]

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."

Re:Ultimate irony

[damburger]

Damn right. What exactly has Fox News said on the occasions they have been challenged on their objectivity?

Re:Ultimate irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah? ...The News of the World was also alleged to have paid an out-of-court settlement after a legal case allegedly threatened to make public evidence of hacking. The News of the World is part of News International, which also publishes The Times.

Re:Ultimate irony

[jabithew]

That's not the half of it. Every issue of Private Eye has an example of the News Corp communal silence.

Re:Ultimate irony

[funkatron]

Looking at the slashdot comments here, I'd say that claiming they were criticised is a pretty effective way for them to turn public opinion against people.

Re:Ultimate irony

[TheRaven64]

Depends on the issue. They covered the criticism by the Open Source Consortium over their decision to use Microsoft's DRM for iPlayer, for example, and I doubt you'd find many Slashdot readers arguing that pushing Microsoft's proprietary formats is a good use of taxpayers' money.

Re:Ultimate irony

[PenisLands]

But Sun, News of the World, and etc are tabloids right? So it makes sense that they wouldn't have anything about an incidence of illegal phone tapping, because it bears no relations to celebrities, evil paedophiles, sex scandals, etc.

Re:Ultimate irony

[abigsmurf]

It's always weird but they're very careful to report on news regarding the BBC as they would another channel.

A big example was when the BBC basically went up against Tony Blair over the 'death' of David Kelly, a weapons expert who provided information that basically said the Iraq war dossier was full of lies and half truths.

He then 'committed suicide' whilst on a walk in a secluded woodlands. The government blamed the BBC and a government inquiry agreed.

Throughout the story, the BBC reported on all the critisisms levelled at them, had talk shows where attacks on the institution were given as much time as the defence. It was really odd watching BBC News 24 and having them report headlines that say how bad they were.

Re:Ultimate irony

[petermgreen]

IIRC they were pushed into drm on iplayer by some agency called "BBC Trust" which afaict is an organisation responsible for regulating the BBC.

I've always thought it rather crazy given that all the material has been previously broadcast as unencrypted DVB but I don't think it was actually the BBCs fault.

Re:Ultimate irony

[TheRaven64]

Quite incorrect. The BBC Trust is responsible for regulating the BBC. They were the organisation we filed the complaint with, and who ruled that the BBC had to release a cross-platform version. They were satisfied with the implementation using Flash, which is better than the original but still requires a proprietary plugin (doesn't work with gnash, for example) and doesn't allow downloads for offline viewing without Air.

The BBC claimed that they were forced to provide DRM by the rights owners, but that didn't explain why they needed to for BBC-produced content, nor why they could suddenly provide a DRM-free version for the iPhone. It also didn't explain how they were allowed to transmit in unencrypted HD MPEG2 over the air...

Re:Ultimate irony

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.newscorp.com/news/bunews_39.html
http://www.newscorp.com/news/bunews_40.html

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/402737/The-News-of-the-World-was-the-subject-of-some-ferocious-attacks.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124713962333917725.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124710587096916143.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124725579809924597.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2528020/Met-Police-No-investigation-into-hacking.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2530062/No-truth-in-News-of-the-World-phone-tap-claim.html
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Article/200907215334404
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Article/200907215335802
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25762968-401,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25763994-23109,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25759684-7582,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25757545-2703,00.html
http://www.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=351326
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6670747.ece

just a few links about it from News Corp. owned sources.

/deafening right?
//oh and in the end, it seems like the guardian (a rival newspaper to News Corp. in the uk) got a bit carried away with reporting this because they didnt seem to have any of the evidence of the claims that they were making.

Re:Ultimate irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the BBC's approach is too soft. They're so afraid of appearing biased that they frequently forget to mention facts that would help their case, but that are also vital to the proper understanding of the news article itself. For example, in this case they completely forgot to mention Murdoch's connection to Fox News, the only news organization I know of that actually sued for the right to lie to its viewers. I think that's the kind of thing one shouldn't forget when discussing the future of journalism.

Re:Ultimate irony

[Anonymous Coward]

And for the record, the BBC isn't funded by the Government directly,
though every 5 (?) years the Government reviews the license fee.

In practice, the BBC is usually in a state of friction, if not war, with the
UK Government of the day; right-wing governments consider it a left-wing bunch
of commie pinkoes (they would call it liberal, but that's not a term of abuse
in the UK); left wing governments consider the BBC unsound on doctrine, and
too fond of accurate and complete reporting. In either case, as far as the
UK Goverment is concerned, it's a bad thing. But people in Britain like it,
so it's not easy to destroy.

Pot and kettle

[pfafrich]

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.

Re:Pot and kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll?? In line with most of the rest of the comments here this seems perfectly reasonable. Certainly doesn't deserve to be modded Troll.

Re:Pot and kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Seconded. It's as true as it gets.

Re:Pot and kettle

[AubergineDream]

Have to agree with the verdict on the Times unfortunately , it has went seriously downhill - the standard of journalism is terrible. The other broadsheets may be denounced as biased (left/right etc.), but at least they are well researched and can argue their case.

It isn't free

[meerling]

'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?

Re:It isn't free

[gbjbaanb]

'The people' have already paid for the BBC via their TV license fees, it is in no way 'free'.

Unlike SkyTV charging you a monthly fee to receive their broadcasts, and then making you watch adverts too. They (News intl. corp) needs to be investigated, and broken up.

Re:It isn't free

[Anonymous Coward]

And you cannot un-subscribe (unless you live in a cave with no electricity).

Re:It isn't free

[arthurpaliden]

If people really wanted to support paid for news sites they would with cold hard cash. It just seems that they are quite happy to get their news from free government supported news sites.

Re:It isn't free

[General Wesc]

'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?

Way to completely miss the point. Everyone in the UK (with a TV?) is forced to pay for the BBC. News Corporation doesn't get the option of forcing everyone to pay them. Therefore, the BBC has an unfair advantage, which is anti-competitive and may damage the news market.

Of course, the reality is that the BBC is providing a valuable public service that the competitive market refuses to fill: objective, mature reporting. And News Corporation fails the worst.

Re:It isn't free

[arethuza]

Unless you pay more for Sky+ and then take great delight in never watching anything "live" and fast forwarding through every single advert. The only way they could improve it would be to have a "skip adverts" button on the remote.

Re:It isn't free

[Anonymous Coward]

that is disgusting, i never realised that BSkyB forced everybody to subscribe to their service...
oh wait, they dont.
but you know who do force you to pay for their service (even if you dont watch it)?
thats right, the bbc.
/what you are saying is nonsense.

Re:It isn't free

[sumnerp]

Yes you can un-subscribe, you just stop paying the license fee and if they ask why tell them you no longer have any equipment capable of receiving broadcast television. Easier to claim this if you remove any satellite or terrestrial antennae. You can event continue to use iPlayer with non-l;ive content. What you can not do is opt to pay only BSkyBs fee.

Re:It isn't free

[vivaelamor]

Hear hear!

Re:It isn't free

[vivaelamor]

Of course, the reality is that the BBC is providing a valuable public service that the competitive market refuses to fill: objective, mature reporting. And News Corporation fails the worst.

I disagree with this (except the part about News Corporation).

Firstly, I do not believe Jonathon Ross or Jeremy Clarkson to be a valuable public services.

Secondly, while everyone here loves to sing the praises of the BBC, it was Channel 4 News who broke the story about the Iraq war dossier being suspect and Channel 4 generally has a reputation as the more serious news service.

Thirdly, there is not actually anything stopping the BBC continuing without the license fee. In fact, you could continue it as a non-profit organisation and cut all of the non news services that shouldn't be considered essential thus reducing the burden on low income families who just want a reliable source of news. As long as the license fee exists then a lot of the money that could be going into real essential services is being drained by entertainment.

The real problem is obsolescence

[kawabago]

Traditional news organizations are being made obsolete by evolving web based news reporting where everyone is a reporter. That's the real problem. If traditional news organizations cannot evolve with the web then they will die. Sad for them but good for everyone else.

Hey Murdoch, ask me

[Linker3000]

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:Hey Murdoch, ask me

[Asic Eng]

Interesting how paying no tax on profits of $20.1 billion still allows someone to waffle on about concepts like "fair price". What's fair about owing $350 million and not paying?

Re:Hey Murdoch, ask me

[rts008]

...I am a UK BBC license fee payer ...

Sorry for the editing, but the spelling bugged me... :-)

What I wanted to reply with to your comment was this:

Thank you, and your fellow countrymen for the BBC.
Officially, and formally: many thanks to all of you from this USA citizen.

The 'Beeb' has been like a beacon of light in the murky world of news media...not perfect, but coming closer than most others have.
Murdoch can kiss my dog's balls...and hopefully get his face bitten off in the process.

Again, thanks to you all for the BBC! Your contribution to the betterment of the world has not gone unnoticed, nor unappreciated by some of us outside of the U.K.

Re:Hey Murdoch, ask me

[vivaelamor]

While I dislike anything Murdoch tainted as much as the next geek, for once they are talking (some) sense even if driven by nefarious motive. The license fee doesn't just go against certain ideals, it is inconsistent with all that surrounds it and should be scrapped as a matter of course. The alternative would be to extend the funding model or adapt it to encompass more non-essential services, something that would surely test just how (in)effective the model is.

I think it obvious that the BBC's finer points are due to its funding, salespeople are all about sales and the bbc is all about politics. It is only going to get funding as long as it proves itself to be acting in the interests of the people. The problem is when you consider not just its success but its cost and failure. The cost being taxing the whole country for a non essential service and the failure being every person who pays for the service who is denied a choice. If you are in the (seeming) majority who willingly pay for the BBC then I cannot fault your method of promoting self interest. However in the interest of basic reasoning and to put it bluntly.. fairness, if the BBC is so important then surely the people who like it so much can pay more to support it without our help.

Re:Hey Murdoch, ask me

[Anonymous Coward]

Having worked for the BBC for about a year and a half, I can say I have reservations with how some of the money is spent. Money spent on celebrities, for example, can be a bit excessive.

The argument is that people won't watch the BBC's shows if they just have unknown upstarts doing it, and to be honest I think they're right to some extent, but I also think that in some cases the popularity game is one the BBC doesn't need to play. I mean, I don't mind Jonathan Ross, but I see no reason why the taxpayer should pay top money for him to appear in shows without adverts.

At the same time, do you really want a system whereby the BBC constantly takes on cheap new talent? They'd either be snapped-up by other channels if they're any good or allowed to linger if they're mediocre.

See, the BBC is not only charged with making the content, but with making-sure that as many people as possible use it. This is done to justify the license fee, and is why they have adverts for BBC stuff between shows, and also pay so much for celebrities that they know will get the viewing figures. Sometimes, however, I wish they would just concentrate on what makes them unique rather than trying to make stuff that as many people as possible will watch. If people want to watch mindless drivel with celebrities they like, they can have adverts and so on.

Re:Hey Murdoch, ask me

[Tacvek]

Licence is a valid spelling of the word. That is one of the UK-US spelling differences.

Different meaning of independent

[Anonymous Coward]

Murdoch means "independent journalism" in the sense of "journalism that is independent of the facts". The Beeb obviously threatens that, with their insistence on reality-based reporting.

To call Fox News...

[crumbz]

... news reporting and not entertainment is silly. James Murdoch should realize he is competing with Disney, Warner television, and the National Enquirer.

Re:To call Fox News...

[joocemann]

Only ignorant fools actually watch the channel and think it carries weight anyway.

Its like putting on cartoons for the mentally disabled to keep them from getting up and doing something dangerous.

Re:To call Fox News...

[joocemann]

Watch the videos on foxattacks.com where they show plenty of clips from FOX to demonstrate how belligerent, biased, and disgusting they are as a 'news resource'.

And yes, all of the video you will see is from Fox News. You will see the channel speak for itself in the argument against Fox News. Nothing can be more evident of such horror as example.

Watch those videos. If you think Fox can be trusted after that (never mind the whole Monsanto/Posilac fiasco, and allowing a fascist like Bill O'Reilly a platform) you've gotta be blind/deaf and willing to defend your ignorance by all means.

Re:To call Fox News...

[joocemann]

... I forgot to add to my prior response... The evidence of Fox's bullshit is about as prevalent as the air you breathe and apparent as the blue in the sky above.

It is because such evidence is so well present that I hastily assumed people to be informed/ignorant based on their observation of this highly prevalent evidence --- and felt I did not need to actually spoonfeed.

But, in my response I gave you the spoonfeed. Eat it or not, the truth is there and blatant. Maintain your ignorance, force your lips closed.

Re:To call Fox News...

[vivaelamor]

While funny and certainly not something I would argue against, I would point out that BBC provides entertainment through licence fees as well as news.

Re:To call Fox News...

[joocemann]

Ahh.. bummer.. See, I thought the blatant evidence on Foxattacks (video of Fox TV) supported my argument about 'ignorant fools'. To put it clearly and simply, you have to be an ignorant fool not to actually see this blatant garbage for what it is.

Supporting evidence. Get a clue. GET IT NOW?

Is it ad hominem if it is true?

Calling the waaaahmbulance...

[realnrh]

Please follow up with every sarcastic expression of sympathy you can muster. To start: "I'm playing the world's smallest violin for him."

Re:Calling the waaaahmbulance...

[Harold Halloway]

oooh call a doctor, my heart is bleeding.

Re:Calling the waaaahmbulance...

[Lemming Mark]

You'd think that with his salary he'd be able to afford some cheese with his whine.

Indepdendent?

[alan_dershowitz]

OH SNAP:

Media Concentration

Read: media without profit motive threatens the moneyed-interest propaganda monoculture. And are we seriously supposed to believe that the son of Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand that media is international these days?

"As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion," Murdoch said, referring to George Orwell's book, "1984."

What an unbelievable fucking tool.

Re:Indepdendent?

[FourthAge]

Firstly, control by the Government is neither better nor worse than control by Murdoch. Except in Britain, where it is worse, because you don't have to buy the Murdoch media, but you do have to pay for the BBC if you have a TV. So the BBC has lots of resources to distribute pro-Government propaganda.

Secondly, the BBC monopoly is one of the things that keeps Murdoch rich, because it helps to crush the little guys so there is less competition. Murdoch is one of the few with the resources to compete with a huge taxpayer-funded organisation that most Brits are forced to pay for. If the BBC did not exist, we would have more independent broadcasters, who would not be under Government or Murdoch control. I would welcome that.

Re:Indepdendent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rupert Murdoch is an inner party member. You should take his opinion more seriously.

Re:Indepdendent?

[Wheely]

Unless you actually are one of the Murdochs, I pretty much guarantee that if the BBC ever had to fight for paying customers, youÂd end up almost apoplectic with rage at the sheer dross these independent broadcasters of yours would be producing. "Biased" you aint seen nothing yet.

Re:Indepdendent?

[phantomfive]

What an unbelievable fucking tool.

Oh no, he is not a tool. This is the family who built a media empire, he is the man holding the handle on the tool. If you said what he just said, you would be his tool. Fortunately you are not, and it looks like not many other people will be either...........this time.

Bill O'Reily is his tool.

Re:Indepdendent?

[AubergineDream]

The State does not in the slightest enjoy a near monopoly - there are international channels (free via satellite) and channels available via the internet if you so want it. Also there are commercial channels availiable in the UK free of charge (ITV etc.). It would be possible to argue that access to TV requires payment of the licence, but after that access to independant news etc. is based on the willingness of the consumer to see value in paying for that service beyond what is available for free. This is in actuallity an attempt at a resource grab from the BBC because the advertising revenues are low at the moment. The worst posible scenario would be that the murdoch empire wiped out local/regional news (as against competition) unilaterally. The BBC ensures there is at least some (reasonably unbiased [usually against the goverment]) news broadcasting.

Re:Indepdendent?

[zyzko]

Unless you actually are one of the Murdochs, I pretty much guarantee that if the BBC ever had to fight for paying customers, youÂd end up almost apoplectic with rage at the sheer dross these independent broadcasters of yours would be producing. "Biased" you aint seen nothing yet.

Yes - just look at Russia. Although there the media, government and big corporations are sometimes the same thing. And even if the official government is shrinken to bare minium there will be another entity to fill the void, usually armed with tv and radio stations (again, look at Russia, Italy is much less worse but the Berlusconi empire is still quite scary). Public broadcasting can be bad and can be abused, but done right and with enough freedom from government control and some competition it has been show to be quite good.

Re:Indepdendent?

[Anonymous Coward]

"As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion," Murdoch said, referring to George Orwell's book, "1984."

What an unbelievable fucking tool.

Orwell was a BBC employee; by using his quote to attack the BBC Murdoch has committed logicrime. The Ministry of Truth aren't going to be happy with this. Benefit from more news at six o'clock.

Re:Indepdendent?

[hkmwbz]

If the BBC did not exist, we would have more independent broadcasters, who would not be under Government or Murdoch control. I would welcome that.

And then Murdoch would simply buy them all. Oops.

QOTD

[girlintraining]

'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!

Re:QOTD

[Darkness404]

If you live in the BBC, chances are you already pay for the BBC via taxes and "TV licenses", for those of us not in the UK, chances are we also pay for the BBC via a cable or satellite subscription with BBC America as one of the channels.

Re:QOTD

[Darkness404]

...And I should really learn to proofread. That should say If you live in the UK chances are you already pay for the BBC. Not If you live in the BBC.

Re:QOTD

[TheRaven64]

I live in the UK, subscribe to the BBC news feeds, and watch BBC programs on iPlayer through a computer connected to a projector, but because I don't watch live TV broadcasts I don't have to pay the license fee. I did pay it for a year in spite of not needing to, because I consider that the BBC news is worth paying for, but I stopped when they decided to adopt Microsoft's DRM for iPlayer. Once iPlayer migrates to using open standards and no DRM, I will be happy to recommence paying the license fee.

Re:QOTD

[Epsillon]

We do. And you know what? If it keeps the likes of Murdoch unhappy, I'll happily pay it again. There's a rumour doing the rounds that his BSkyB media company is trying to lure the ITV (the other PSB network that used to be made up of regional broadcasters) secondary channels away from the Freeview and Freesat networks. I shudder to think what other plans he has to lock broadcasting up under his own control, but he needs stopping, and fast.

Re:QOTD

[querist]

And for those of us who cannot obtain cable service, we buy BBC-produced DVDs. There are many ways to support worthwhile television. If the US networks ever started producing some, maybe I'd watch more TV and fewer imported DVDs.

Re:QOTD

[jesset77]

He's right, Doctor Who pays no such taxes, and he only watches BBC when he parks the Tardis at Rose or Marha's house. Damn freeloader. ;D

Re:QOTD

[myowntrueself]

I used to listen to the BBC world service all the time. For years.

I couldn't get any reception on radio so I listened online, they had a realaudio feed, as I recall.

One Olympics, the BBC world service news on the hour was replaced by a voice repeating over and over:

"Due to rights restrictions, we are unable to bring you this program".

For the entire Olympics there was no BBC world service news broadcast online.

I never went back.

I don't think that BBC online broadcasts could be worth paying for because they would always be subject to these kinds of 'rights restrictions' and you never know when they are going to forbid you listening to the news in case you hear something that you don't have the rights to.

Re:QOTD

[vivaelamor]

I concur, however before I paid for any BBC services I would want them to split those services up. I don't think my news should be subsidising entertainment or vice-versa. I think this is a key problem we see with most corporations (like Murdochs') and that it would be an important measure to preserve the integrity of the BBC in a free market.

As long as paying for BBC news gives Jeremy Clarkson a wage (and I do watch Topgear, my point is that I wouldn't pay to watch it), I will look for an independent service to support. This problem goes both ways.. I won't buy a Simpsons DVD as long as their network is Fox.

This is not only an issue of principle but one of economics. When you pay a corporation you are rarely supporting what you've paid for as much as you are funding the corporation's next moneymaking scheme. Free markets work best when the exchange of money for a product is not handled by a middleman with their own agenda.

Ahh Yes the Free Market

[coaxial]

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."

Re:Ahh Yes the Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

Cartels are more or less illegal (at least in the EU which I belive UK is a part of).

Re:Ahh Yes the Free Market

[opticalbiophysics]

You are right. I like what you say BUT let's allow for the fact the BBC is also interested in these corporate ideals. And furthermore, Subjectivist's have a powerful and cold argument that leads to another dead end, no less wrong than your evil "Monopoly" or "Cartel". Just because two parties are involved, doesn't mean the two sides to the story should be given equality in reporting. BBC's agenda of "objectivity" feeds the methods of evil despots and hateful extremists with greater facility than any other way to get their message out.

Re:Ahh Yes the Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

By your comments its obvious you're a front line tool who knows as little about management as you probably do about hygiene. Many companies want a fair opportunity to compete. For Murdoch to say he objects to people being forced to pay for BBC coverage via taxes, and having the "news" given by a state organ sound exactly like someone who wants to compete. Why should taxes only support ONE (i.e. BBC's) viewpoint, and any other viewpoint must be paid for by convincing people their stuff is worth buying.

Not agreeing with Murdoch's content does not mean he doesn't have a valid argument.

Re:Ahh Yes the Free Market

[Wheely]

He does have a valid argument.

However, the BBC is the British governments tacit admission that true quality is not provided by a free market.

Currently the BBC feels pressure to fight for ratings, at least where TV broadcasts are concerned and that has lead to a marked decrease in the quality. It still has however, at its root, the knowledge that it does not actually NEED ratings to survive and therefore, crappier though it might be, it is still the only thing keeping the British television a few points above a sea of Sun "news" headlines.

Re:Ahh Yes the Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the American Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries.

Re:Ahh Yes the Free Market

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that people in the UK consider angles to arguments and real benefits more than people in the US. Idealism can be dangerous when it actually produces worse practical scenarios.

News and Information is meant to be free

[Cable]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The information isn't free. It's funded (as you said) by taxes and donations. I'm not saying that wrong or anything, but its important to understand that it's not free. You are paying for it (assuming you pay taxes and live in a place with publicly funded news services).

Re:News and Information is meant to be free

[BlueBoxSW.com]

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.

Re:News and Information is meant to be free

[Darkness404]

The difference is The Wall Street Journal has reputation (well, at least it did before they were bought by News Corporation), on the other hand Fox News does not. Ever heard of the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index? The company that compiles that is the same company that owns The Wall Street Journal. And I expect the Wall Street Journal to decline in relevance as management shifts from older generations to younger generations more comfortable with the internet.

Re:News and Information is meant to be free

[BlueBoxSW.com]

It's not about reputation, it's about the quality and timeliness of the news.

In the world of finance, that's easy. If I have better information, quicker, I can make money. that creates value and justifies the cost.

Sure, they are going to gut the brand. They already hired a conservative wonk to run the editorial page, and they're planning on selling off the Dow Jones Index brand, and the same basic information is available on finance.yahoo.com.

But, there is a market for the value they are adding (same goes for Bloomberg), and therefore they will be OK for quite some time.

Take Slashdot. Would you pay a couple buck per month for Slashdot?

I would. Not like $30, but easily $3 or so.

I would say there is at least one article a week that makes my job easier. that's an easy justification for me.

Re:News and Information is meant to be free

[Elshar]

Most public libraries keep on hand an extensive collection of historical periodicals. So if a student did use a print media for his sources, the professor could just use the facilities to temporarily use one of the stored periodicals. But with the interwebs, you can't really legally make a backup or a version that's freely accessible by the public with no extra fees than the initial cost of the media (Ie, library pays $1 for the newspaper, all patrons can now view that paper for free).

    I think that's what the GP was trying to say: Print media has the ability to be physically stored and viewed without (much - microfilm/fiche) technology. Fee-based internet subscription services generally can't legally (As per the agreement) be viewed by anyone other than the original account holder.

Re:News and Information is meant to be free

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I gather you're not familiar with the business models of most publishers of scientific journals/conference proceedings. They charge their authors to publish *and* they charge others to access this material.

Re:News and Information is meant to be free

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is The Wall Street Journal has reputation (well, at least it did before they were bought by News Corporation), on the other hand Fox News does not.

Fox News definitely has a reputation.

This would be funny...IF:

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be funny if it wasn't so scary. What he's saying is that news reporting/broadcasting should be only allowed by commercial companies. The big problem is that commerical companies have their own agendas, are in it for the profits (so they pander for ratings and advertising, which greatly affects their objectivity), and (ironically as in the case of Fox News in the USA-owned by Murdoch) can even have a big political slant. This is REALLY scary-and the fact that he even says this speaks VOLUMES about HIS objectivity!

The Murdochs can die in a fucking fire

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the BBC provides news. How is that competing with what Fox provide?

BBC News article about this

[druuna]

The BBC News site has an article about this:

Murdoch attack on 'dominant' BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8227915.stm

Free Market, Baby

[BlueBoxSW.com]

Love capitalists who complain about the destructive nature of the free market.

What would you prefer, socialism?

AccuWeather and the Weather Channel (in the US), who take publicly provided weather data, process it, and resell it, love to complain about how NOAA gives similar info away for free.

Uhm, my tax dollars paid for that, so yeah, I want it for free.

If you add value through your processing and predictive analysis and create something that has a market value, then that is great, but don't complain others can get the free data that you, yourself, have gotten for free.

Re:Free Market, Baby

[blueg3]

Uhm, my tax dollars paid for that, so yeah, I want it for free.

No, no. It's "I want what I already paid for."

Re:Free Market, Baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Love capitalists who complain about the destructive nature of the free market....

Capitalists? Maybe mercantilists or monopolists, or to be sensational like Fox, fascists, perhaps...

**** Murdoch

[Anonymous Coward]

**** The Murdoch

(obligatory)

Free News?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this free as in beer or free as in bias and censorship?

Re:FREE NEWS?

[sumnerp]

Last I checked Wyoming was in America and outside of the BBC's public service remit.

Re:FREE NEWS?

[AmigaMMC]

Last I checked I was able to read all the news on their website from Wyoming as I've done for many years.

Re:FREE NEWS?

[sumnerp]

Yes, but with adverts as you complained above, if you were in the UK there would be no adverts.

Re:FREE NEWS?

[AmigaMMC]

I complained about ads? You need to check your reading skills. I merely stated the fact that there is advertising so it's not a free service.

"A" doesn't necessarily follow "B"

[R2.0]

'The expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision.'

I agree.

'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.

Wait, what? Just because state sponsored journalism is a bad idea doesn't mean that the only solution for news on the web is payment based. And calling News Corp properties "independent digital journalism" is a side splitter.

As for the purported "objectivity" of the BBC, feh. I listened to them report on a comment by a British pol about parts of British cities being like "The Wire". So they played a scene with a gunfight, and then said simply "and the show continues the same way" in a sneering, dismissive tone. They may be neither liberal or conservative, but the snide superiority that drips from their stories isn't exactly Walter Cronkite level journalism.

Re:"A" doesn't necessarily follow "B"

[Anonymous Coward]

My sentiments exactly R2.0. I also often find the BBC (and might I add British citizenry "in general") to be quite the supercilious lot.

Re:"A" doesn't necessarily follow "B"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just because you share a language with them and can read their news. If you read Italian, French, German or Spanish news you would also find that their concerns are also centred around themselves and, amazingly, that they consider themselves culturally and politically important.

You'd be amazed at what American news looks like to the outside world - world-changing events that occur outside the US are often completely ignored.

Then add value above what the BBC provides....

[mcwop]

Pay news sites, just do not add much value. The articles are mostly dribble-like opinion, and often present no details around the facts and statistics behind the article. Take Barron's for example, which I used to find high value due to the lack of many alternatives. Now, I can get the same/better analysis via other financial or news communities. If Barron's wants me to pay, then they need to add valuable content NOT available through the other sources. It is funny, because they have this content, but make you pay an added extra amount, on top of your Barrons subscription. Barrons, somewhat recently, offers paying customers the full articles on Saturday, then it is all free on Monday.

Winfall

[carsonc]

News Corp. has been buying up failing news outlets like candy. Now they are trying to cash in by using their influence to change the playing field and make them worth something again. This will reap them great profits and just cement their dominant market position.

Up the BBC

[lttlordfault]

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.

Re:Up the BBC

[FourthAge]

Oh dear. Don't you see? The BBC told you what to think.

When Princess Diana died, the BBC told everyone that the nation was in mourning. And hey presto, they were.

When Daniel Hannan MEP criticised the NHS on American TV, the BBC told everyone that there was widespread public anger. And hey presto, there was.

Almost nobody went to see what Hannan had really said. Almost nobody had looked at the facts he presented, or the context in which he produced them, because the BBC had told them everything they thought they needed to know. In fact, everything Hannan said was true, and if you read his book ("The Plan"), you will find he is in favour of NHS reform, not scrapping the whole thing. The BBC didn't feel the need to mention that. They wanted to demonise him.

You've just provided the perfect example of why the BBC is a bad thing and why we should be rid of it. It speaks for the Government. It does not speak for us.

Re:Up the BBC

[lttlordfault]

I did research what Daniel Hannon said, context and all, he's a twat of the highest order and if I had any say in his electorate I'd slap him something stupid.

As to princess Di to be fair it wasn't just the BBC that created that hype, the Express took care of most of that. The BBC just took part in what became a feedback loop of hyped grief

Re:Up the BBC

[FourthAge]

Well, I can't say fairer than that! Personally, I would vote for him because I think he is awesome, one of the most honest and outspoken politicians we have, but I can understand why people might not like him.

Re:Up the BBC

[Wheely]

Have you no idea at all about how society works!!!

Re:Up the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC is under constant attack from Murdoch's media empire (and to a lesser extent other commercial media companies). Not a day goes by when one of the newspapers, TV stations or other media outlets it owns doesn't run a story about something the BBC has done that is bad. Whether it is running a TV show critical of Christianity (despite the fact it airs the pro-Christianity programme 'songs of praise' every week), wasting the licence fee payer's money by buying an iPod touch for the web department to test the website on (yes really), Clarkson's latest marginally offensive joke or dishonoring British troops by going after the UK government over Iraqi. So this isn't a new thing. They have been attacking the BBC day in and day out for probably 3 decades now.

They want it gone because it does two things they don't like:

1) It takes away advertising revenue.
2) The BBC acts as a quality control (In both news and programming) so they can't get away with a Fox News style TV show. Any lies they tell would stand out like a sore thumb.

It will be a sad day when they get their way. Which they will. Eventually they will pay the right number of politicians the right amount of money and the BBC will either have its funding slashed or it will be commercialised.

Re:Up the BBC

[vivaelamor]

I'm also from the UK. I have no problem whatsoever how the BBC spends your money either. I have a problem with how they spend the money of those who don't think they are the Queen's gift to our island.

The BBC are certainly one of the most balanced and fair news reporting organisations but quite frankly how does that justify the license fee? It isn't about whether the license model is providing a better service (although that can be argued either way) but about whether being balanced and fair are sufficient reason to make it exempt from the free market. If the free market is incapable of producing fair and balanced news then fix the free market.

If the arguments for the BBC license fee were remotely reasonable then it would be a tax not a license fee. While I am no fan of how most things in our capitalist society work I am less of a fan of glaring hypocrisies propped up by those who are too short sighted to realise that the merits of the status quo are insignificant compared to how hypocrisy stifles progress in any system.

Re:Up the BBC

[pbhj]

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.

Are you serious? They're about as nepotistic as it comes - they pay presenters like Jonathan Ross way over the market value, then they don't even employ them. The BBC employs the companies wholly owned by people who are or were at the BBC. That way rather than producing programs they pay Ross's company over the odds to produce the program, he gets paid an inordinate amount and makes a profit from the production company, ie a percentage of all the wages paid to everyone who works on the show. Nice work if all your cronies are deciding which company to go with and how much to pay. How can they do that, they're not having to compete for money - they get the extortionate amount for Ross, run out of money and then just say to the Government "oh yeah we're putting the fees up again".

Radio 4, "Gardeners Question Time" it's been running at least since I was a lad. It's a descriptive title and a standard format - 4 or 5 people take questions from a live audience and record the show. You'd think as there's no intellectual property reason not to that the BBC would just produce this themselves - no way, the producers get more money if they co-opt their own company to hire them as producer to make the show. Is there really a financial reason why the BBC can't make this sort of program themselves?

Then there's the "no advertising" - they spend millions on their trails and funky graphics, which are nice enough video art projects but you know as a public service I'd be happy with a voice over a CC image from Flickr and save the few million to make some TV programs.

Don't get me started on the pseudo-commercialism where they compete to create the drossiest most low quality shows possible that are near enough copies of what the other channels are doing (unknown celebrities being paid too much to be pillocks), program diversity? Ha! Yes they can make great shows, they should stick with them and not pretend they have to go after viewing figures. They could save 10s of millions by not bidding on sports licensing and letting the commercial interests have that, it would lower the market price too. Who couldn't be suspicious about the BBC buying F1 away from ITV, the BBC buying rights to something that is already being shown on British TV free-to-air, bunch of muppets. Football results - ITV are doing it, put something else on, it's OK they have competition from Sky already.

But don't worry the BBC Trust are watching them for us, in between riding in their £25k per year chauffeur driven cars and their £20k hob-nobbing sessions at wimbledon when they're not spending (as the chair Lyons has) £13k in 4 months on expenses paid by license fees.

The BBC has some good left in it but it appears mainly to be one huge gravy train.

Murdoch Jr. has a point - the BBC don't have to compete commercially and so put the rest of the commercial media under a huge pressure if they aren't curtailed in economic down turns when the advantage is hugely magnified. I have no problem with this if the BBC were genuinely being run in our favour and not burning money on poor management and cynical greedy insider deals. Paying presenters 100 times what MPs get is ridiculous and simply shows that the BBC needs commercial pressure to bring it in line.

The BBC should be cut off and learn to fend for itself.

Re:Up the BBC

[abigsmurf]

But Diana was an angel who never did anything wrong and was a victim! The resemblance of prince Harry to a certain guardsman is entirely coincidental.

Re:Up the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use the horrendous American term "socialized medicine". This is what Americans say when they mean "a country where you won't be left to die if you don't have the cash to pay a doctor". Why Americans think this is a bad idea has yet to be determined.

Re:Up the BBC

[nosferatu1001]

.....bullshit

The most consistently impartial (independently verified!) news broadcasting outlet in Europe, if not wider.

If you don't like the BBC, move out of the UK or stop watching live TV. Your complaints have no merit.

Re:Up the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't get airtime in the UK, so goes to foreign counties and disrespects his HOME country to get airtime in the UK. And you call that honest?

He does have the balls to say what the UK media won't, but that says more about the state of the UK media, rather than the size of Hannons balls.

Re:Up the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole reason it is not a tax is to keep it that one extra step from that obvious source of influence. Why would you WANT it to become more government funded?

Re:Up the BBC

[FourthAge]

"You call that honest?"

Yes I do, because everything he has said has been exactly what he thinks. Also, I have never, ever heard him say anything disrespectful about Britain. Perhaps you could give an example? btw. Criticising Britain's Government, politicians or institutions is not "disrespect", it is "democracy".

Re:Up the BBC

[vivaelamor]

But it isn't any steps away from that obvious source of influence. You could have the BBC charter or whatever keeps them supposedly on the straight and narrow even if it was funded directly from taxes. You could have the same charter for a private commercial company or a non profit organisation. The difference is then people aren't forced to pay for it.

I'm not in favour of paying for media out of our taxes but I am in favour of calling a tax a tax rather than a license. At least then the government would be accountable for how the tax is collected rather than leaving it to a bunch of thugs who would be better suited working for a loan shark.

Re:Up the BBC

[Draek]

If the free market is incapable of producing fair and balanced news then fix the free market.

Mind sharing some ideas as to how?

-- Sincerely, the rest of the world.

Re:Up the BBC

[sumnerp]

The BBC acts as a quality control (In both news and programming) so they can't get away with a Fox News style TV show.

We are privileged in the UK to be able to receive Fox News. I guess that is the price we pay for giving BSkyB control of the UK TV satellites. Perhaps if more people watched it support for the BBC would go up.

Re:Up the BBC

[vivaelamor]

Certainly, there are a few key choices in fitting something like that into the free market.

Firstly I'd offer Citizens Advice as an example, they actually receive government funding (tax money) but are entirely independent and compete on the free market with everyone else by offering a competitive service. One way they do this is by being volunteer friendly, as a charity they have clear principles which appeal to volunteers and they train volunteers to be able to offer a high quality of service to complement the paid workers. While a commercial company can certainly compete with that in the short term by injecting money from investors, they can never provide the same value for money in the long term.

To go back to the BBC, the first thing they could do to compete in the free market is split the service up. This is an important step whether government stay involved or not, like with Citizens Advice, potentially the government can still offer funding for things like news. What they should not offer funding for is people like Jonathon Ross and Jeremy Clarkson. If the government do not provide any money for news then this is still an important step as the same people who are willing to pay for quality news to compete with Murdoch are unlikely to be the same people who want to pour money into the already saturated entertainment industry.

Lastly, probably closer to the answer you were expecting is the suggestion of regulation. If there is no government funded news service then there would probably want to be government regulations for news services. If there is government funding for the news then the competition for that funding should be sufficient to provide self regulation.

The freer the market the more the success relies on individuals being capable of making decisions. Unfortunately that is something sorely lacking and as such the most effective options are heavy regulation or tax funded services. What we have at the moment is something else entirely, because the BBC get our money without competing for it there is no room for any better services.

Of course, anything you do to the BBC will have the potential knock on effect of strengthening the Murdoch empire and that is possibly the most important thing to consider. I think possibly the most effective way to deal with Murdoch at this point is regulation but no one action is going to give us a way forward, there needs to be a full plan of action and I don't imagine anyone in politics at the moment coming up with one let alone managing to sell it to the country.

Re:Up the BBC

[makomk]

They're about as nepotistic as it comes - they pay presenters like Jonathan Ross way over the market value, then they don't even employ them. The BBC employs the companies wholly owned by people who are or were at the BBC.

I think this is at least partly down to Government interference. IIRC, the Government insists they contract out a certain proportion of their shows to independent producers. Something about ensuring non-BBC companies can still survive.

Sky TV - entirely missable.

[Harold Halloway]

Well I pay my taxes and my TV licence fee and I'm really delighted in what the BBC does and the high quality with which it does it. I tried your offering Mr Murdoch and it was overpriced shit.

What next: BUPA complains that the NHS is unfair competition?

How special do you think you are?

[fche]

So since you're happy with the BBC, you're happy to insist that all of your neighbours and countrymen also continue being forced to pay for it?

Re:How special do you think you are?

[FourthAge]

I don't know why this is Flamebait. I'm one of his countrymen. (Countrywoman in fact.)

I don't want to watch Sky TV. So I don't. I don't pay Mr Murdoch anything, and I don't get any Sky programmes. No problem.

I *also* don't want to watch BBC TV. But I still have to pay the BBC their licence tax. I still have to listen to other Brits going on about how impartial, fair and balanced the BBC is, even though I know for a fact that it isn't. I pay for the BBC to crush the competition through the power of their tax-funded "public service". I pay for the BBC to tell me who to vote for, what to say and what to think. And I am fucking sick of it. Where is my opt-out?

Re:How special do you think you are?

[dkf]

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.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[FourthAge]

This is true. Also I could disconnect my TV from the aerial, and tell the TV licensing people that I had done so. But I shouldn't need to do that. TV licensing shouldn't exist at all.

"The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?",

Jeremy Paxman

Re:How special do you think you are?

[dkf]

TV licensing shouldn't exist at all.

I disagree. I've seen the wasteland of shit that is US terrestrial TV. Even the PBS channel system is mostly very poor. CNN's OK for a while, but it persistently lacks real intellectual depth so it palls rapidly. It's not just the US either. German and Italian TV is also not good, and Polish was funny but for the wrong reasons (they had dubbed a single heavy male voice over a programme with several young women making out, which is just plain wrong and yet hilarious). Swedish TV is mostly worthy and dull, like a snazzed up PBS. I've not spent enough time with French, Spanish, Canadian, Japanese, South Korean or Singaporean TV to be able to comment fairly on them. (Heck, I've seen rather a lot of hotels over the past few years...)

Note that Fox News is the worst I've seen for sheer dishonesty. The equivalent in the UK (Sky News, owned by the same company) is much better, probably because they've got to compete directly with the BBC.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[Homburg]

You're happy to insist that all of your neighbours and countrymen also continue being forced to pay for it?

Well, that is how the provision of public services usually works, yes.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[Rising Ape]

You could say the same about the police force, the NHS, the military...

I think it's essential that there's a news source required to be as honest and bias free as possible, and not commercial in nature. The effect of a badly informed population isn't limited to the uninformed themselves - they can *vote*.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[FourthAge]

I disagree. For two reasons. Firstly, the BBC has political bias. I've gone on about that at length, won't mention it again.

Secondly, the quality of BBC programmes isn't all that great. There are some gems out there, but a lot of it is just mindless mainstream dross of the sort that could quite easily be produced by any of the commercial channels. It's as if they've given up on trying to be cultured, and have just decided to compete for viewers instead. I find myself watching a lot of TV imported from the US these days - no BBC influence there - so I just don't think the licence fee is worth it.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[LaskoVortex]

I don't know why this is Flamebait.

Because there is a lot of shit you want the government to do. Now, if you want the government to do some of the shit you want, then you are going to need to put up with it doing some extra shit you don't. It's called "the real world". I welcome you to it.

Now, let's get rid of laws and their enforcement as a first step to dismantling government, shall we? Oh, you don't want to do that. See, that's some of the shit you want the government to do. Any questions?

Let me guess, you know what you don't want the government to do when you see it. I tell you what, make a list of all the shit you don't want the government to do, and we'll draft up a proposal for Parliament. I'm sure your list will be well thought out and Parliament will act accordingly.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[jeremyp]

I disagree. For two reasons. Firstly, the BBC has political bias. I've gone on about that at length, won't mention it again.

Yes, but we know that's bullshit. You also claimed the BBC tells you who to vote for. That's bullshit too.

Secondly, the quality of BBC programmes isn't all that great. There are some gems out there, but a lot of it is just mindless mainstream dross of the sort that could quite easily be produced by any of the commercial channels. It's as if they've given up on trying to be cultured, and have just decided to compete for viewers instead. I find myself watching a lot of TV imported from the US these days - no BBC influence there - so I just don't think the licence fee is worth it.

The BBC produces some dross but also produces a lot of quality television. If you think otherwise, you're an idiot. I for one am eternally happy that you have to pay a licence fee so that I can watch TV without adverts. Thank you.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[FourthAge]

I must say I'm surprised by your angle of attack. Usually, when defending the BBC, people insist that it isn't part of the Government (technically true) and it isn't funded by tax (also technically true). But you agree with my premise that it's part of the Government, and go on to say that this is fine, and running a news organisation is just a normal job of Government! For some Governments this is certainly true.. the USSR, the DPRK and China would be examples.

As it happens, I do have a pretty short list of things that the Government should do. It is based on a very simple principle: the function of Government is to do things that could not be done any other way. That would include law enforcement and running the military. It would not include running a news organisation.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[arethuza]

I agree that the quality of BBC TV seems to have gone downhill a bit but BBC Radio is still outstanding - particularly Radio 3 and Radio 4.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[LaskoVortex]

I must say I'm surprised by your angle of attack.

That's what I do. You should play me at chess.

the function of Government is to do things that could not be done any other way.

We agree on that. I don't know what the function of the BBC because I'm American, but as long as the BBC is not controlled by the government, I don't see why it would be at a disadvantage to commercial news sources in terms of reducing bias.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[vivaelamor]

Mod parent up, some idiot with points is on a power trip.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[FourthAge]

I don't see why it would be at a disadvantage to commercial news sources in terms of reducing bias.

Ah, we're talking at cross purposes! Yes, it can counteract the bias of other news sources, but the ties to Government are decidedly unhealthy. It frustrates me (a) because we have to pay for it, and (b) because people say that the absence of commercial interests means that it is impartial, which is not true. This is why I don't like it. I suppose I did say so in a rather Flamebaity way though... guess I misjudged the amount of pro-BBC feeling on here.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[AubergineDream]

I think what has happened is that the BBC channels have diversified - BBC2 no londer has the remit for factual 'intellegent' programs - that's BBC4. music is on BBC3, BBC1 and 2 are now mainstream.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[k10quaint]

As it happens, I do have a pretty short list of things that the Government should do. It is based on a very simple principle: the function of Government is to do things that could not be done any other way. That would include law enforcement and running the military. It would not include running a news organisation.

You mean like Pinkerton guards and Blackwater? The government could EASILY outsource their police organizations to private contractors and in fact did for many decades. We can and do outsource a lot of our military work abroad to Blackwater and dozens of other companies like them. So, given that it can be done, by your argument it should be done.
Mail could be carried by Fedex & UPS.
Agriculture could be handled by Mosanto.
Treasury could be done by Goldman Sachs.
Justice could be handled by National Arbitration Association.
The interior could be handled by Six Flags & Exxon.
Commerce could be handled by Bloomberg.
Labor could be handled by the AFL-CIO.
Health and Human services could be handled by Kaiser Foundation & Blueshield.
Transportation could be handled by the Teamsters.
Housing and Urban development could be handled by Toll Brothers.
Energy could be handled by Exxon & Chevron.
Education could be handled by Harvard and Yale.
Veterans Affairs could be handled by Alderwoods Group Inc.
Homeland Security could be handled by the Mexican Drug Cartels.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[zyzko]

I disagree. For two reasons. Firstly, the BBC has political bias. I've gone on about that at length, won't mention it again.

Secondly, the quality of BBC programmes isn't all that great. There are some gems out there, but a lot of it is just mindless mainstream dross of the sort that could quite easily be produced by any of the commercial channels. It's as if they've given up on trying to be cultured, and have just decided to compete for viewers instead. I find myself watching a lot of TV imported from the US these days - no BBC influence there - so I just don't think the licence fee is worth it.

This seems to be a common gripe in countries with strong public television. I happen to live in Finland and we have the same kind of system and the complaints are the same. Depending on which party is in the majority the public broadcasting company is accused to favor it and the mandatory tv license is often called unconstitutional, unfair, and whatnot on discussion forums. And the funny part is - our broadcasting company buys several BBC and HBO shows and there are both people who claim that the quality is not good enough and people who say that those expensive programs belong to pay-tv channels.

And we have had the same despute here in Finland too - a few months ago the heads of the commercial tv/radio companies filed a complainment against the public broadcast company because it provides it's news on public billboards and loudly voiced an outcry that their business is hurting. And there have been also mumbling about how a publicly funded organization should not have a good web service with news and archives of it's programs.

For me this is just hilarious - channels with no ability to produce original tv programs (let alone domestic tv shows) and fill themselfs with crap and occasional news broadcast (competition in news is good, Finnish tv suffered from "one source syndrome" 30 years ago but then again - the whole society was bend over tovard the soviet union). I can't - even for money buy ad-free quality news, drama and documentary. I am more than happy to pay for my programs but I want them ad-free and produced with professionalism, not the crap Animal Planet and Discovery gives me (1/5 of the time is ads even on pay-tv, only a few quality shows).

Re:How special do you think you are?

[FourthAge]

To me, "outsourced by the Government" means the same thing as "run by the Government". I think your list provides some good examples of why "Government control of everything" is not a good idea.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you watching then? ITV? Five? Don't pretend you don't watch BBC.

I don't watch BBC... Except when the world cup is on, then I watch it. Oh and I like that Strictly Come Dancing. And HIGNFY is quite funny. Oh and I enjoy Radio 2. etc etc...

Re:How special do you think you are?

[AlamedaStone]

guess I misjudged the amount of pro-BBC feeling on here.

Complaining about the objectivity of the BBC to Americans is going to get you a lot of eyerolling. A lot of us over here don't trust any news but the fake news, and that's only on for 4 hours every week (except during vacations... come back Jon!!)

You may not like the BBC, but it's still some of the least-biased and most informative news in the world. Maybe paid news *should* be more impartial, or more detailed, but it doesn't ever seem to be.

Re:How special do you think you are?

[FourthAge]

Well, thanks. You deserve the BBC. Enjoy those ad-free "quality" programmes. Enjoy the "unbiased" news reporting. Enjoy the British Government that you deserve, enjoy the Britain that you accepted by default.

£140 a year is what you pay for the BBC. However, you have no idea what the BBC actually costs you. Don't bother to find out, because if you do, you won't be able to tell anybody. They'll just attack you for saying bad things about the "wonderful" BBC. They'll just say "bullshit.. bullshit.." and "if you think otherwise, you're an idiot."

Sounds to me like he's asking for collusion...

[joocemann]

And that is illegal....

But, god forbid a capitalist company in a capitalist society attempt to capitalize... (sarcasm)

We embrace capitalism but we pretend its byproducts of deception, corruption, and disregard/disrespect for human life aren't a natural phenomenon to putting $$$ over people.

Someone, please --- choke a murdoch.

I wish Murdoch would quit whining

[Dan667]

and start charging for his news. It may only take a month for him to figure out no one wants to pay for it, but it it would be great for the world to get a break from his yellow journalism.

Re:I wish Murdoch would quit whining

[hachete]

But he wants to wipe the net of all free news don't you see. Get back to the Good Old Days when only the 4th Estate had the monopoly on news.

I fully support the BBC. It's website has become my source of news on the web, and I guess it's the same for a lot of other people. And long may it remain so.

greedy bastards

[markringen]

greedy bastards stay greedy bastards... as if everyone is instantly going to pay for news without the bbc... greed must also make you incredibly prone to being a complete and utter idiot bastard of another idiot bastard, who was on his own an idiot bastard of yet another idiot bastard!

Government sponsered

[Dan East]

It is government sponsored. While the BBC is factual, trustworthy, and all that, other state sponsored media are not. Imagine being stuck with the Chinese, Iranian or North Korean state sponsored news organizations.

Also, I find it funny how so many people on Slashdot can cry fowl that all blank CD sales in Canada include a tax that goes to the recording industry (on the assumption that someone will illegally copy music onto the media), while it's okay for everyone that purchases a TV in Britain to have to support the BBC, whether they actually watch it or not.

Just because the BBC happens to be a decent news source does not mean that its funding or distribution is an ideal situation.

Re:Government sponsered

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC is not government sponsored, it's paid for by the license fee on tv's in the UK. That's why it's a license fee and not say paid by the taxes (since then the government would be able to change the funding as it would please).

Re:Government sponsered

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC is not like Chinese state news, because private news organisations contradicting the BBC are not forcibly shut down.

Murdoch simply wants to eliminate one of the most respected news organisations in the world so he can fill the airwaves with bullshit and nobody will have any other source of news.

Re:Government sponsered

[SimonTheSoundMan]

BBC World Service is funded by the Foreign Office, not the license fee.

The BBC is also split into many other companies, outside of the UK they are usually commercial and not funded by the license fee also.

Re:Government sponsered

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit more ideal than doing it by straight tax revenue, as in the case of PBS/NPR, which has a substantially lower following. We gotta remember, BBC doesn't just do news, but provides a wide variety of programmes on par with, say, all the major US networks combined.

Re:Government sponsered

[Dr_Barnowl]

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)

And that's all commercial free , with a mandate to inform, educate, and entertain.

Re:Government sponsered

[Draek]

It is government sponsored. While the BBC is factual, trustworthy, and all that, other state sponsored media are not. Imagine being stuck with the Chinese, Iranian or North Korean state sponsored news organizations.

You seem under the impression that a privately-funded news organization in those countries would fare better than a state-sponsored one. I assure you, if they're of any significant size they would not.

Controlling the prisons provides you with a much bigger 'incentive' than controlling the money flow.

Re:Government sponsered

[djmurdoch]

Also, I find it funny how so many people on Slashdot can cry fowl that all blank CD sales in Canada include a tax that goes to the recording industry (on the assumption that someone will illegally copy music onto the media),

I find it funny that people keep repeating the music industry line that such copying is illegal. It's not. Read the Copyright Act, paragraph 80. It's very clear that copying music for private use is legal in Canada. That's the point of the levy.

Re:Government sponsered

[cfalcon]

"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."

Hate to break it to you, but a license fee collected by the government for merely owning a TV is a tax by some other name, and it's for sure "government funds". No one pays me because they own a television, and if the government collected money from everyone and forked it over, would you be ok with me saying, hey, I don't have any government funds! Just funds given to me by the government that have been taken from you!

Re:Government sponsered

[vivaelamor]

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.

The government sets the level of the license fee. The license fee is paid into the government and then the BBC receive a share which is also set by the government (as far as I can tell, at least it is done through the Department of Culture Media and Sport). Saying that it is not funded by the government is kinda like arguing over whether someone was killed by a knife, a person or blood loss. It has arguably more ties to central government than Council Tax.

Re:Government sponsered

[Anonymous Coward]

It receives no government funds.

Huh? What do you call the fee paid by everyone that owns a TV set is then? Unicorns and rainbows?

with a mandate to inform, educate, and entertain

I get a little leary when a pretty much government run organization has a mandate to inform, educate, and entertain.

Re:Government sponsered

[selven]

Just because the tax is called a "license fee" does not mean that it isn't still a tax. And because the federal government collects the tax, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government and the fact that the BBC isn't regulated like other federally funded services, the BBC is federally funded.

Re:Government sponsered

[Tacvek]

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.

In 2008 the BBC's non-commercial (i.e. in Britain) operations revived 4 million GBP in government grants. Granted, that is well less than 1% of it's income, but it does invalidate the claim of receiving no government funds.

Further the BBC World Service is funded exclusively (or very nearly so) by government grants from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The BBC Monitoring service receives money from all sorts of source, including some funding by foreign governments.

That said, much of the rest of your message is valid.

Do take note that the PBS in the US receives only 15%-20% of its funding from the federal government, and 25-29% from the smaller government. That means only 40%-50% of its operations is government funded.
Such small amounts greatly limit the influence the government can exert on the the system. For most intents and purposes, the PBS system is independent.

Further, even if there was a USBC, I can guarantee it would waste money like crazy, having only a small fraction of the efficiency of the BBC, likely having about 4 channels, and 2 radio stations.

Re:Government sponsered

[nosferatu1001]

The level of fee is set by the government, however the collection is through the licensing arm of the BBC and is not connected to the government at all.

It has also been happily doing this since radio licenses were around: it is a system that works, producing some of the highest quality programming on the planet.

Re:Government sponsered

[jabuzz]

Hate to break it to you, but the government is not involved in the collection of the license fee.

That said the foreign office does pay the BBC a substantial sum of money to run the World Service. However the bulk of that programming is not viewed or listened too in the UK.

Re:Government sponsered

[vivaelamor]

and is not connected to the government at all.

Sorry but you don't seem to have any idea how the process works.

From the Communications Act 2003: "Subject to subsection (8), sums received by the BBC by virtue of any regulations under this section must be paid into the Consolidated Fund."

Even wikipedia recognises that fact. As well you might want to look at the BBC Charter from which I quote: "The Agreement was made between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, and approved after a debate in Parliament in July 2006."

You are correct in saying that the collection is done by the BBC, which I would say is one of the biggest issues I have with the whole thing. When a real tax is collected you don't get someone trying to convince you to let them into your home who isn't a bailiff and doesn't even have a warrant.

Re:Government sponsered

[Cally]

>> everyone that purchases a TV in Britain [has] to support the BBC, whether they actually watch it or not. >> > Yes, this is true. No, it is not. You only pay the license fee if you use (not possess) a TV set, radio, or watch live online streams.

Re:Government sponsered

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC do not collect the license fee. That is done by the TV Licensing Authority (TVLA), who are an independent group distinct from the BBC and the Government. While most of the license fee is spent on the BBC, some of it is also used to partly fund Channel 4, ITN (ITV News) and some specialist programming such as S4C.

Re:Government sponsered

[Kynde]

>> with a mandate to inform, educate, and entertain
>
> I get a little leary when a pretty much government run organization has a mandate to inform, educate, and entertain.

I'd get a lot more leary when if it'd be done my the Murdochs.

Re:Government sponsered

[vivaelamor]

The BBC do not collect the license fee. That is done by the TV Licensing Authority (TVLA), who are an independent group distinct from the BBC and the Government.

What prattle. The BBC subcontract collection to the TVLA but it is still the BBC's responsibility. I won't bother providing a link because at least two of the ones in my previous post already explain it. Damn troll.

Re:Government sponsered

[dylan_-]

Just because the tax is called a "license fee" does not mean that it isn't still a tax.

It's not a tax.

And because the federal government collects the tax

Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.

, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government

Or even just our government...

and the fact that the BBC isn't regulated like other federally funded services,

We don't have any federally funded services as we don't have a federation.

the BBC is federally funded.

I'm pretty sure it's not, you know.

More seriously, the BBC is neither government nor private: it's something in between. It was deliberately set up that way specifically to avoid becoming a government mouthpiece and considering the critisism it receives, from both government and opposition, I reckon it's working pretty well.

Re:Government sponsered

[selven]

Just because you have different names for things doesn't mean they're different. A rose by any other name, and all that.

Re:Government sponsered

[vivaelamor]

It's not a tax.

The TV licence was reclassified as a tax by the OFN in 2006 (read the blue book). It was even talked about in the House of Lords.

Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.

It is indeed collected by the TVLA but the authority to do so is set out in the Communications Act 2003 which makes it a criminal offense to not pay the TV licence fee.

, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government

Or even just our government...

This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.

The BBC is funded by the government as far as any tax is.

Re:Government sponsered

[vivaelamor]

Government grants are funded through taxes. The licence fee is technically a tax. I don't see how calling it a licence fee makes it any less government funds.

Re:Government sponsered

[vivaelamor]

Isn't that kind of nitpicking irrelevant to the point he was making as well as slightly inaccurate? The main reason any consumer might want to possess a TV and not need a TV licence is to use the set to watch recordings. Under that scenario what you say would be invalid as you would be using a TV without having to pay a licence fee.

Re:Government sponsered

[Tacvek]

I'm well aware that government grants are funded through taxes. My point was that the BBC was funded though normal taxes at least a tiny amount, along with the licence fee.

To be clear, I do agree that it is effectively a tax. It is one that is possible to opt out-of, which is not common for a tax. It also has the unusual property that it is not pooled in with the rest of the government revenue, with the appropriate amount for the BBC potentially getting changed (often by cutting back) every time the budget is set. That also makes it more difficult for the government to meddle in the BBC's affairs through messing with the funding.

In general that makes it better (for the BBC) than a regular tax.

Re:Government sponsered

[vivaelamor]

I disagree with use of the term 'opt-out'. You don't 'opt-out' of the cigarette tax when you don't smoke.

The rest of what you say makes sense, I agree that the way the BBC is set up largely keeps the government from interfering. I have to say I'm a little fed up with quite how many people talk nonsense about the licence fee when praising the BBC though. I wouldn't deny the BBC any of its merits, I would scrap the licence fee if I had half a chance regardless.

Re:Government sponsered

[Tacvek]

There is a slight difference between a cigarette tax, which is applied to a very specific product, and the license fee which does not apply to any specific product. One can purchase a TV without paying the tax, since if there is no Video reception equipment on premises, even the inspectors are forced to conclude no license fee is necessary.

Why would somebody buy a TV without intent to view television? A number of reasons. A modern television consists of several components: a monitor, an integrated speaker system, video/audio format converters, and finally a TV tuner. Such a system is perfectly suitable for things like DVD players, game consoles, and even for use as a computer monitor.

A tangent:

Indeed, I've seen some Tv-like systems, which include most of the normal hookups, except for the coaxial hookup. The reason? Such a system is all quite a few people need anymore. It makes a perfect Computer monitor, it works for game consoles, and DVD players, and for most people, it works for television, since they use a satellite receiver, cable box, PVR, or other external device to manage channels.

In such a case, having a TV tuner on the TV generally only gets in the way: somebody unfamiliar with the setup changes the channel on the TV, resulting in loss of image until the device is returned to the correct input, etc.

Re:Government sponsered

[vivaelamor]

I wasn't comparing a TV to a pack of cigarettes, I was comparing the taxing of cigarettes to the taxing of receiving TV signals. I do appreciate the difference between owning a TV and owing the licence. There was an interesting case some years ago involving an ex-con who only wanted to use a TV with his VCR.

My only point in that statement was the inappropriate use of the words 'opt-out'. In common usage opt-out refers to refusing an unwanted service, not refusing a service that you want because you don't like the price.

Backhanded compliment

[_Shad0w_]

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.

Independent from what?

[MartinSchou]

Technically Fox News is an independent news stations. I realise they're an easy target, but it is really difficult to claim that they are unbiased when they are willing to call people who disagree with a republican president traitors, and people who disagree with a democratic president patriots.

To me, the best kind of news agency is the one that is always in opposition to the government and always critical of what happens in politics.

One somewhat ironic way that might be accomplished is to enshrine into law a publicly funded news agency (like the BBC), that is required by law to ask tough questions of government and politicians in general. The trick to this, is of course that some politicians are very keen on pressuring such organizations into sacking critical journalists etc., and it is rather tricky to set up a system, when the politicians have the option of cutting off funding if they don't get their way. I don't think it's impossible - it's just not something that'd be possible to fit into a Slashdot post. Nor is it something I have a solution to.

Leave Murdoch alone.

[opticalbiophysics]

Oh please, like the BBC doesn't have an agenda. Murdoch's right, a little competition is a good thing even in the News media. Personally I don't think it even makes sense to assume Truth in any of the drivel they feed us through the TV. The revolution will not be televised precisely because we PAY FOR IT!

Re:Leave Murdoch alone.

[Harold Halloway]

There's nothing wrong with competition. What Murdoch has patently failed to do is to provide any. That's why he is whining.

Oh and your tfh is starting to show.

Re:Leave Murdoch alone.

[ClosedSource]

You're right the BBC does have an agenda - reporting the news. Murdoch should try it.

Re:Leave Murdoch alone.

[opticalbiophysics]

Here's my problem. Subjectivism. Just because two parties are involved doesn't mean the two sides to the story should be given equality in reporting. BBC's agenda of "impartial reporting" feeds the methods of evil despots and hateful extremists with greater facility than FOX news.

Re:Leave Murdoch alone.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. Cutting and pasting the same words over and over isn't going to make your comment any more insightful. I'd be willing to bet that you are just parroting something you read or heard elsewhere anyway. Simple proof, describe a specific example of the BBC's agenda of "impartial coverage" feeding the methods of evil despots and hateful extremists with greater facility than FOX news. You must have one in mind to have drawn your conclusion.

Re:Leave Murdoch alone.

[ClosedSource]

Actually, I'd say that most US network news makes that error. They report on what both parties say but make little effort to point out obvious lies or errors.

Fox usually avoids that bad interpretation of "impartial reporting" because they only present the side they agree with.

Re:Leave Murdoch alone.

[AubergineDream]

I agree with this - if Murdoch wants to compete he should look at channel 4 news (1 hour long and generally in depth analysis). This is his rival not the BBC.

Independence on other sources of money and quality

[owlstead]

Two problems with this statement:
1 - media that relies on money from third parties (because subscription fees are just a part of the total amount earned) may also be a threat to independent journalism - as the third party almost always is advertising, this means that those media relies on commerce, and most likely it relies on mega corps
2 - money can be used to produce high quality articles, but in no way should the it be implied that having money for news mean that the articles would be of a higher quality, or more independent

What's that sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh! It's the Waaaahmbulance coming to treat a severe case of "the world is not as I want it to be"-itis.

Typo in summary...

[wellingtonsteve]

"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"??

Re:Typo in summary...

[oneandoneis2]

Sadly enough, a friend of mine teaches science to 11-16 year olds. She was explaining about genetics and reproduction. The students said she was wrong about how it worked, because they'd read in The Sun that a woman had given birth to puppies. And they wouldn't believe that an article in The Sun might be wrong

And in a few years time, they'll be able to vote

Re:Typo in summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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"??"

Famously, the Sun writes to a reading age of 6 years old. And sells 3 million copies a day or thereabouts. Last read a copy in 1982 but it has not improved. When the Navy sank the General Belgrano in 1982, killing about 2,000 people the Sun's triumphalism (and all the other tabloids, I've not read one since) sickened me. This was during the "discussions" between the UK and Argentina over the ownership of the Falkland/Malvinas islands.

The Sun has not improved since. Sadly, it sets our penal policy nowadays and has a strong emphasis on revenge as the point of justice. I work with a lot of people who were sent by courts into the mental health system. Thanks to scum like Murdoch (Any of the vile clan), they will never get out regardless of their danger or otherwise to society.

Just about all of their vile outlets are used to propagate a frightening agenda which will profit Rupert and his vile family - not society. What really scares me is that anyone at all doesn't see through their horrible agenda.

Re:Typo in summary...

[pbhj]

I heard recently but can't verify that The Sun is the most popular newspaper in the UK! Radio 4 I think it was.

Re:Typo in summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats funny is that the Murdoch empire got its first start in the UK media by purchasing the Sun newspaper and turning it into a tabloid.

Re:Typo in summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the BBC series, Yes, Prime Minister. This is a script about who reads which British Newspapers. Note the last line about Sun readers...

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

"State Sponsored"

[MLCT]

He is entitled to his opinion on what the status of the broadcast market is in the UK (and it mostly seems to be an attack that fits in with the "great pay-wall of Murdoch" that they are planning - "nobody nowhere should provide free content" is the mantra). However what is totally unacceptable is use of phraseology such as:

state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision

while it doesn't surprise me that someone coming from the same family as fox news would make such a absolutely false statement - it does make him look particularly stupid. Any idea that the BBC is state-sponsored (a phrase that conjures up images of despots ordering what the daily headlines will be) is both false and misrepresenting reality - staples of the murdoch methodology. This would be the same BBC that in its capacity as a news reporter examines and holds the government to account on behalf of the people every day. Zircon, David Kelly, and many more.
We can only be thankful we don't live in murdochs world where they control all. The only "News" that the public would be allowed to "consume" would consist of right-wing bile and trash shalebraties and their sordid tales.

Murdoch: Competition destroys journalism

[David Gerard]

Rupert Murdoch, speaking out on the news business, stated today that "the free access model is clearly malfunctioning, as I don't make enough money from it."

Media commentators fear for the future of investigative journalism. "How can we hold governments' feet to the fire without money to pay our great reporters? Where would you get your recycled wire feeds, your Garfield cartoons?"

"We have to educate people that free doesn't work, particularly for us. So the BBC should give me free money. How about a bailout? And Google. Free money please. Go on, gi's it."

Illustration: my precioussssss.

Really?

[laughingcoyote]

From TFS:

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

Does anyone else find it ironic for Rupert Murdoch to be talking about "independent" journalism? Does he even know what that means?

I wonder how "independent" his organizations would be if they uncovered dirt on News Corp.? Somehow, I'm guessing they'd be quite quickly reminded exactly who their boss is.

The BBC, and its concept, might really not be a bad idea. It doesn't have to worry about making a profit, so it's free to report on actual news rather than sensationalism. If given the choice between the BBC or News Corp. going away, well, been nice knowing you, Mr. Murdoch.

Murdoch != Murdoch

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, James Murdoch is the son of Rupert Murdoch, who is the actual guy who runs "News" Corp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Murdoch_(media_executive)

He's sorta right

[davmoo]

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.

Re:He's sorta right

[dulridge]

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.

In the Eighties (About 84 AFAIR) all the journalists on the Sun went out on strike for 3 months. Nobody noticed as all the news was made up by the sub-editors as per usual. "Quality" journalism indeed!

Re:He's sorta right

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for Murdoch, with the sole exception of the Wall Street Journal, none of his holdings produce good journalism.

People keep saying that, and it's simply not true.

The WST sucks as well. You're right, we don't have hundreds of other newspapers covering the same stories, but the stories published on the WST are still poorly researched or biased.

Re:He's sorta right

[pbhj]

But if we want to watch any telly at all we have to pay for the BBC's offering. You can't wait and see if they're going to fabricate stories about the Queen or jump on the bandwagon slagging off MPs or overpay their presenters before you decide it's worth paying for. Even if you like the ITV offering better you're stuck with paying for the BBC News too. That's not right in a commercial environment, surely?

Re:He's sorta right

[Anonymous Coward]

you would have to actually be a reader of the WSJ to say something like that.
and unlike what all the critics were saying, we still havent got Page 3 girls in the WSJ yet.

Re:He's sorta right

[Anonymous Coward]

And the trouble is AP, Reuters and the like can operate only because they directly sell the product of their reporting - to the media conglomerates, and those working in finance and government. What happens if they start to sell direct to the punter? What model works?

Re:He's sorta right

[ynohoo]

it's true, if all the TV channels funded by advertising disappeared tomorrow, I would barely miss them.

Dear Rupert: +1, Amicable

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you too chicken to intimidate ?

You AND your progeny are sorry excuses for protoplasm.

I hope your Wall Street Journal declares bankruptcy along with the rest of the criminal capitalist enterprises running rampant in the collapsed United Gulags of America.

Yours In Vladivostok,
Kilgore Trout, Scientist

You can't compete with free?

[oneandoneis2]

Uh-oh. Somebody better tell Perrier, Evian, Pellegrino et al that it's impossible for them to make money by selling water!

Re:You can't compete with free?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Perrier, Evian, Pellegrino et al
Aren't selling water so much as an image.

There was an interesing episode on "Penn & Teller: B.S.!" where they filled some fancy looking plastic bottles with water from a garden hose and sold them to patrons at a fake restaurant they had just set up. After some fancy pitch, the fools, err customers, bought these bottled waters. Some even commented on the unique "bouquet". H20 has a bouquet?

Oh yeah, it helps if your customers are easily manipulated idiots with lots of hubris and cash.

How dare you use Public Money for the public good!

[MrSteveSD]

...is the underlying complaint that big business makes across a range of issues. Most recently over the issue of Health Care in the US. When you think about it, it's pretty outrageous that corporations lobby governments to prevent us from using our own money for our own benefit. Yet it goes on all the time and is often successful.

Murdoch concerned with news independence? LOL

[Concern]

So the scion of the world's most notorious propagandist has the audacity to speak publicly about media policy.

If voters wish their government to do something for them, they vote for politicians that promise it, and it gets done. Those in England have voted to have a "public option" for news. Some will say that because it's "government owned" its objectivity cannot be trusted, and this is indeed a danger, just as it is a danger that privately owned media cannot be trusted, let alone under the laissez faire regulation regime that Murdoch Sr. and Jr. lobby for. Power is power, and it is not a foregone conclusion that power controlled by elected representatives is more dangerous than power controlled by corporate sponsors or the whims of billionaires.

It's reasonable that a government-run news organization could do a better job than a privately run organization. Similarly for electric power, firefighting services, courts, schools, etc. It's not guaranteed to succeed, but there is no fundamental problem with it in principle, as long as a nation has a free press (the government can say what they like, but so can everyone else).

The Murdoch's underscore the point by running some of the most servile and ludicrous propaganda instruments in mass media today. For those concerned about the difficulty of competing with the government to make news, one must simply examine reality to see how it is done. Amusingly, Murdoch himself is not always concerned with profit - he runs propaganda instruments such as the New York Post in the red simply to gain influence and push competitors out of business.

While some could make this story into a discussion about the principles of government, media and democracy, that would be elevating Murdoch's ploy far above what it is: a transparent attempt to destroy another competitor and gain even more unified control over the world's mass media. It is breathtakingly hypocritical on his part to cloak it in the rhetoric he does.

Re:Murdoch concerned with news independence? LOL

[pbhj]

So, if the only media outlet were the BBC, the others being killed in the Great Depression, do you think we'd be getting unbiased news? How would we know? Don't we need multiple outlets? I don't really trust the posh nobs that form the upper echelons of the modern BBC much more than I trust the Murdoch empire.

Amusingly, Murdoch himself is not always concerned with profit - he runs propaganda instruments such as the New York Post in the red simply to gain influence and push competitors out of business.

So is it all right to run a media company that can't sustain itself (the BBC basically get a 3.5billion GBP bailout from the British public each year) that pushes competitors without that backing to the wall or is it not?

Re:Murdoch concerned with news independence? LOL

[Concern]

Well, there's the argument of principles and the argument of today's facts on the ground. On principles, at least, it's a slightly interesting discussion as to whether PBS (or BBC) should live or die. But when you say:

"I don't really trust the posh nobs that form the upper echelons of the modern BBC much more than I trust the Murdoch empire."

Stop, it's too funny, it hurts.

The BBC isn't calling Obama a racist, or suggesting that FDR wanted to privatize social security. Equating Murdoch's sick, Nazi-esque propaganda machine with the BBC is kind of like saying, yeah crack cocaine, McDonald's french fries, they're both kind of addictive and unhealthy.

You want to match incident for incident, have a little BBC versus "Murdoch empire" duel? Or do you know how it will end.

Re:Murdoch concerned with news independence? LOL

[Quantumstate]

An important point that you have missed is that there is a separation between the government and the BBC. The license fee which is collected independently from the government by the BBC is set 5 years in advance (the maximum length between elections is 5 years) so this means that the government cannot push their agenda through the BBC by threatening to reduce funding without an election in which they would get very bad press for trying to restrict the freedoms of the BBC.

Re:Murdoch concerned with news independence? LOL

[pbhj]

OK, this is the comparison I was making - Murdoch Sr. money grabbing rich person, BBC execs and trustees money grabbing posh rich people, ... and the difference?

I was pretty much choosing to ignore output.

Do you really believe that News Corp is profligating German National Socialist ideologies of the early 20th century? Really. Delusional ever?

Re:Murdoch concerned with news independence? LOL

[Concern]

First question. Is "profligating" a word?

Second question, do I believe Murdoch's propaganda is Nazi-esque (my actual words)? Yes. Murdoch uses many of the same tricks and techniques of Hitler's propaganda machine.

You dropped the word "trust" from your own recounting of your own words. You assert they're "posh nobs" and "money grabbing" ... and do you "trust" the BBC much more than you do Murdoch? No. And that makes you kind of funny. In fact, you're still making me laugh with that even now, and it's been over a day since you said it.

In other news

[Jerry Smith]

Prostitutes are against my marital status: the free sex provided by my wife threatens the free market, in that prostitues have very little chance of selling their services to me. 'It is essential for the future of independent sexual services that a fair price can be charged for sex to people who value it,' says a spokeswoman.

Re:In other news

[base3]

Wives or prospective wives are actually against prostitutes because prostitutes undercut the cost of wives by far. Actually, any woman who will have sex with a man without a long term commitment is reviled by females at large, because each act deflates what they can get from men for sex or a long term contract therefor (i.e. marriage), hence the labeling of women who will do so as "sluts" or "whores."

WAH! My business model sucks! Help me!

[Chas]

That pretty much sums up the "rationale" behind this "argument".

Thank-you

[John Guilt]

I never tire of seeing how market fundamentalists simultaneously hold their belovèd to be insanely efficient and robust and prone to be destroyed by any kind of public competition.

Admittedly, government could be fixing the game to make sure their own team would win, but 0.) in this case, there is no evidence that they are so doing, and 1.) this assumes that Evil Gummint is one huge monolith made up of drones who consider themselves one team, when in reality different parts of the government routinely act at cross-purposes.

Murdoch is not an idiot...

[Dogtanian]

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.

Re:Murdoch is not an idiot...

[k10quaint]

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.

His business owns a pile of newspapers, TV stations, and movie studios and wants to own more. In this day and age, that to says to me "early onset altzheimers" or he is an idiot.

Re:Murdoch is not an idiot...

[Dogtanian]

Murdoch doesn't need to be (and isn't) infallible. He just needs to be able to rectify his mistakes and/or abandon them before they grow too costly.

It's like how Microsoft dismissed the importance of the Internet in the mid-1990s and promoted their own, closed MSN service. That was a major mistake on their part, yet here they are 15 years later, still the dominant force in the computer world. (*)

Why? Because they recognised their mistake, and used their market power and business sense to reposition themselves and crush a major competitor at the time (Netscape).

Murdoch has made missteps in the past, yet he's still here, and dominant.

Perhaps you *will* eventually turn out to be right. But the demise of the likes of Murdoch and Microsoft has been predicted many times over the years by countless random forum posters like yourself. When- or if- it does eventually happen, it'll say more about luck than the insight of most of the people who got it "right".

So- with respect- you'll excuse me for having a wait-and-see attitude and not taking your word for it.

(*) Some might argue that MS have slightly lost their dominance, and that Google are going to eat their lunch. Arguably so, but that's the result of more recent developments whose predicted results are still in the future.

Windfail

[jesset77]

Soz, you forgot the end tag. :3

Missing the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Here almost all of the comments so far choose to miss the point so they can bash on their favorite scapegoat. not One of the comments above addresses his points only ad hominem attacks on the messenger. Cue replies that he doesn't make a point and oh yeah Feaux News is teh eeeevillll. sheesh.

Re:Missing the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, any time you want to contribute something to the discussion more than whining, be my guest. Right now, everyone else has been far more interesting than you, even when they're mindlessly bashing.

Adapt???

[thrillbert]

They have been doing business pretty much the same exact way for the past 100 years, suddenly technology takes a giant leap forward and it's "OMG!?!? We don't know how to make things more profitable so let's put down those who have figured out how to make money!"

Adaptation has allowed species throughout the planet survive. In their case, I guess they're about to be extinct. Change is coming, beware!

Re:Adapt???

[petermgreen]

so let's put down those who have figured out how to make money!
The BBC is funded by what essentially ammounts to a tax on TV usage. Even if I only want to watch ITV and SKY I still have to pay the BBC.

And the availibility of free news from the BBC has increased considerablly in recent years. A decade ago most people didn't have internet connections and only pay TV subscribers were likely to have BBC news 24 (I'm not sure if it was encrypted or not on digital terrestrial at that time but even if it wasn't digital terrestrial boxes were expensive back then) so the only news most people would have got from the BBC was a few programmes a day and a small ammount on ceefax.

Personally I think any internet news source that put itself behind a paywall would be committing suicide regadless of whether or not the BBC existed but lets not pretend that the BBC needs to make a profit.

Lots of good points so far

[Runaway1956]

No one hits on one important point, though. Paywalls can only result in a less informed populace. While we can and do argue the merits of any given news source, at this point in time, we can browse ALL news sources.

If news is doled out on a subscription basis, we'll be returning to the 1960's when there were only three real source of news - ABC, NBC, and CBS - in the US. Seriously, browse around the news sites, click on the subscription link, and see what it costs. Slashdotters might have decent incomes, and maybe they can afford to subscribe to their ten or twenty favorite news sites. That would probably include the technical news sites, as well as the more general daily news.

Personally, if I had to pay to view places like the Dallas News, the Houston Star, and the BBC, I would be tapped out. I can't AFFORD subscriptions at every place I read. I certainly wouldn't PAY to read Fox News - so the occasional bit of factual reporting by a Fox reporter that no one else covered would never make it into my house.

The entire scheme would tend to produce a more ignorant population. Bad move from everyone's point of view, except the corporate bigwigs who stand to make money from our ignorance.

A diplomatic view

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

Murdoch as we know is a media mogul, however in the BBC's defence, they have an obligation to provide news, radio and quality television programming. I would like to point out that I used to protest paying the license fee, however the amount of advertising that is being carried on "Free to Air channels" is becoming more like America, whereby the balance of advertisements are almost as long as the programme you want to watch so the BBC license fee is acceptable. Murdoch is quite right in so far that we must start paying for online news coverage so his criticism of the BBC is rather unfortunate as the BBC is not a free service! Murdoch needs to understand he is already getting paid, especially as I already pay £23.00 per month to Sky TV on top of my BBC license fee of £11.50 per month for much better programmes. Rupert Murdoch actually has a habit of "bullying" smaller news agencies and has James Murdoch fronting his business plans. Please do not be taken in as Rupert Murdoch has no loyalties whatsoever. He should lay off the £5,000.00 business lunches, helicopter flights, private jet flights, yacht and champagne for a while and come up with a more constructive option that is beneficial to all, instead of penalising "the hand that feeds him". Therefore, IMHO the only solution to this problem is to get everyone talking "at the table" including the BBC and other News Corps to identify a fair share of profits and set aside greed or market share. Sooner or later the general public will not put up with current standards and there will be a revolt in which case it will be a battle of David and Goliath" I know where I am going to put place my bets ;-)

Conspiracy to raise prices

[knuty]

A quote from Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations 1776, is the best answer on James Murdoch worry for News Corporation's $32.996 billion USD revenue:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

The News ... for sale

[Tom]

Thank you, but because they matter to me, I prefer to get my news from sources that do not consider either them or me or both as objects of profit.

I realize every news source has some agenda, so I check more than one for the really important stuff. But, you know, the thing about agendas is that they are fairly solid and if you know them, you can compensate for it. The thing about pure for-profit companies is that their agenda will change to whatever marketing says that day.

Journalism is one of the areas where we can witness, live and in colour, that the free-market ideology does not provide the optimum solution for every problem on every axis. Rather, it provides an optimum profit-maximum solution for problems along the financial axis.

Re:WAH! My business model sucks! Help me!

[opticalbiophysics]

Seriously! Advertise Murdoch, and give that shit you pedal away for free you dumb billionair!! Oops. Maybe that doesn't work because then your big money advertisers leverage their position of supporting you against your message. What's a guy interested in profit for information supposed to do? Any suggestions?

I Need Profit for Information. Suggestions Please.

[opticalbiophysics]

What's a guy interested in profit for information supposed to do? Any suggestions?

Please don't tell me that!

[SteveFoerster]

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!

Re:Please don't tell me that!

[Anonymous Coward]

you root for Predator, because he thinks humans are not enough of a challenge to hunt us

Re:Please don't tell me that!

[StringBlade]

You just grab some popcorn and watch the show cheering each side as they battle themselves (hopefully) into mutual oblivion.

Re:Please don't tell me that!

[bertoelcon]

Predator, at least you can't see them coming to kill you after the Aliens are destroyed.

Re:Please don't tell me that!

[Hurricane78]

Hey, who cares? It's the only game where you always win.

Imagine the old saying that in nuclear war everybody loses. Well, not so if you're an Alien, like radioactivity, and just happens to crash land there. ^^

Re:Please don't tell me that!

[easyTree]

I mean, that's like the media conglomerate edition of Alien vs. Predator!

Gotta say; I'd feel safer locked in a room with Alien and Predator than News Corp. or Disney.

Re:Please don't tell me that!

[adamofgreyskull]

Can't believe this, but no-one's yet mentioned that the tag-line from the AvP movie was:

"Whoever wins... We lose."

Apt.

Re:Please don't tell me that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Always root for the predator. Aliens will kill us wholesale as a means of perpetuating their species. If we're *lucky*, they'll evolve enough intelligence to breed us like cattle.

Predators, on the other hand, they're different. They kill for fun, for the thrill of the hunt. Aliens are their favored prey for that reason - hard to kill, hard to track, and extremely dangerous when you do find them. Humans are weak - almost pitifully weak compared to the other two. We wouldn't have a hope against either of them unarmed, and even armed I wouldn't give us even odds against a predator.

So to the predators, we're boring - hardly worth caring about, except maybe to keep an eye on in case we get stronger over the years to the point where we become strong enough to be worth the hunt.

oh help me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought up a load of competing news organizations and only just noticed that only the BBC is left. Please make them go away so I can make some more moneh!

Troll???

[Frequency Domain]

I'm the guy he's responding to, and there was nothing trollish about his post! You and I may disagree with him, but a legitimate difference of opinion is not trolling. Modding it "troll" is really pathetic.

In related news...

[Nekomusume]

Prostitutes are demanding that everybody else stop providing sex for free, as it reduces the demand for their paid services.

Re:In related news...

[Bender Unit 22]

Talk to the hand.

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has gotten sex for "free", believe me there's almost always a price to pay (and not necessarily monetary). Sometimes a prostitute is actually a bargain.

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Prostitutes are demanding that everybody else stop providing sex for free, as it reduces the demand for their paid services.

Syphilitic prostitutes are demanding that everybody else stop providing sex for free, as it reduces the demand for their paid services.

FTFY.

Re:In related news...

[Dhalka226]

No. More like "prostitutes are demanding that the government stop paying other prostitutes to have sex with anybody who asks."

The issue isn't "free vs. paid," because in both cases somebody is paying. He's arguing that the government paying for one group makes it nearly impossible for groups that aren't government-subsidized to compete.

Rather than throwing out crass Slashdot idioms as if they're insightful, why not try actually debating what was said on its own merits? The questions should be "is he right and to what degree?" and "do we really care as a society?" Not "ZOMG CORPORATIONS WANT MONEY LULZ."

Re:In related news...

[Omegium]

Oxygen sellers are demanding that trees stop providing oxygen for free, as it reduces the demand for their paid services

Re:In related news...

[famebait]

Exactly. This is why there are hardly anyone today making any money on reporting outside of the BBC. Sorry, but when your central argument reaches _that_ level of bollocks, it is in fact OK to treat it as already refuted and proceed to mock the source for its arrogance and likley intentions.

It's almost as bad as the "Corrupt, biased and rich Big Science with the scary Agenda is throttling the flow of balanced and objective information from poor and struggling mom-and-pop oil corporations" shit/meme.

I propose a new name: Shit+meme = Shmeme.

Re:In related news...

[quotationspage]

aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to worry about anybody here angering prostitutes. This is Slashdot.

Re:In related news...

[vivaelamor]

It's a pity the BBC isn't free.

A message to murdoch

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a simple message in reality GO FUCK OFF TWAT

Exact analogy to Obama's Heath Care Argument

[anorlunda]

I'm amazed that no one else commented on the obvious parallel between this debate and Obama's statements on health care.

Obama insists that the so-called public option will not eliminate private health insurance, it will just give them some competition. To me, Murdoch's argument with the BBS is exactly analogous.

Just about everything said on this page regarding the pro/con of Murdoch's opinion should apply equally to the health care debate.

Re:Exact analogy to Obama's Heath Care Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess... you're really Glen Beck posting as someone else, no?

Re:Exact analogy to Obama's Heath Care Argument

[Kagetsuki]

That's interesting. Here in Japan we have both public and private insurance. For some reason a lot of people seem to think our medicine is socialized, but it absolutely is not, we just have public insurance anyone can enter in. But the terms on the public insurance are only what the program can provide (at the moment people with public health care only pay 20% of their bill, including medicine). Private insurance has benefits like they will pay the entire bill if you get cancer or they will cover extended treatments up to a certain amount each day (like 100,000Y a day for some procedure that takes weeks, anything over that you only pay a percentage of). Private insurance however costs a bit more and depending on the company has criteria for entry. The system seems to work quite well, I've certainly never had a problem with it and I'm only on the public health care program now. Two notes: 1. You don't actually have to have any type of insurance, you can go on without it (but why? that confident you won't get sick?) 2. You don't need to pay for public health insurance if you aren't a member of the program, it's NOT tax funded but rather the amount you pay is usually calculated as a small percentage of your income. If the American program is anything like how we do it in Japan private health systems should work fine. If however the public program were say funded by tax dollars, then you have a serious problem because everyone will be paying for it and if you are already paying for one thing it would be wasteful to pay for something else. That would most definitely impact private insurance. So when you say the Murdoch argument with the BBC is analogous, that is implying to me you read somewhere everyone will be forced to pay for public health insurance in America reguardless of weather or not they have private insurance or not. Is that that case? If so that sounds like a really bad implementation of socialized medicine to me.

Re:Exact analogy to Obama's Heath Care Argument

[anorlunda]

Thanks for the interesting post. Here in the USA we have Medicare for people 65 and older. It pays 80% of the medical costs. People can buy private insurance to cover the other 20%. That sounds like what you describe in Japan. We call it a primarily public system.

The debate is now about people under 65. People now have private insurance and Obama wants a public alternative. Opponents fear that political pressure will lead to Congress increasing the benefits of the public option every year while decreasing the amount people must pay. That is popular and brings them more votes. It also leads to eventual elimination of private alternatives, leaving the government system the only choice for most people.

Then, to keep costs down, Congress will start favoring one sickness against another. Special interest groups for cancer, child care, heart disease and every disease will have to hire lobbyists to bribe congress for more money for their sickness. I once lived in Sweden and that is how their free socialized medicine system works. Orthopedic care for old people is always underfunded while sports medicine for athletes is overfunded. It could become a terrible mess here in the USA.

I'm happy to hear that the Japanese system works well for you.

Re:Exact analogy to Obama's Heath Care Argument

[famebait]

People now have private insurance

I note with interest whom you do and do not include in your definition of "people".

Re:Exact analogy to Obama's Heath Care Argument

[dave420]

It's not even close to being the same thing. Jesus you're really trying hard to make something out of this, and failing massively.

Re:Exact analogy to Obama's Heath Care Argument

[Kagetsuki]

That's both interesting and quite scary. In Japan that 20% is simply determined by an equation on how much medical costs the average person against how much is being brought into the system - if more people got sick more often the amount covered would be reduced or the fees would go up. If I go in for a head cold or go in for heart surgery it's basically the same 20% that I pay. For insurance to "favor" one sickness over another based on which one is less expensive to heal is incredibly frightening. If the system works like that then the people who need care the most are probably the least likely to be adequately covered. Thank you for the summary; I'm glad I don't have to worry about this kind of thing, but it's a shame other people do.

Re:Exact analogy to Obama's Heath Care Argument

[Kagetsuki]

Who do you include in your definition of "People"? Are you trying to make some sort of point about Transhumanism or something? Are cyborgs ineligible for the new government provided insurance? Do clones get discounts? Do you need to re-enroll if you've transplanted your consciousness into another body? Tell me, I really want to know!

Re:WAH! My business model sucks! Help me!

[turing_m]

Exactly. I'm surprised that his son is whining like this though, it won't do any good.

Here's what you do if you are in the situation of a buggy whip manufacturer in the days before Henry Ford: you use your inside knowledge of what is happening to sell out (if not all, a significant chunk) when $INEXORABLE_THREAT is on your horizon and not on the horizon of the investing public. This way, you will get a price higher than is justified by the value of the future income stream from your business. Someone else will wind up holding the bag. You will pay some CGT but it will probably still work out better than the alternative - if it doesn't, don't sell. You will probably need a good cover story, because when an owner/manager sells, people are always curious.

Then you learn another business, using a small part of your capital to do so in order not to make mistakes on a grand scale and wipe out all of your capital. Or you just learn how to invest. I remember reading an article some time in 1997-2000 about Bill Gates starting to divest from Microsoft and hiring someone to do his investing for him. It immediately struck my curiosity - almost the only time a person sells stock in their business, especially when they have all their day to day needs covered anyway by a trifling sum of externally invested capital, is because they think it is overvalued. I googled and I think I even found the exact article - it came from 1999. My thoughts at the time were - why would he sell? And why appoint someone to divest? I thought Microsoft was going great. But if you read the Halloween memos of 1998, Gates obviously had a good reason to have a bet each way and the timing is very interesting.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/03/15/256491/index.htm

What you don't do is don't hold on at any cost (like the Murdochs). You don't whine "Oh, my poor profit margins are shrinking!" like the elder Murdoch. Living in denial is never a great place to be in any competitive situation. If you catch something early you can nip it in the bud while you are in a better position.

What really surprises me is that the son is coming out with statements like this. I would expect Rupert to cling to the past - he has had a long and meteoric rise to power. His whole working life people have been kissing his ass and telling him how great he is. He was past retirement age already when the internet was threatening. James is young enough to have a more realistic perspective.

The BBC was here first.

[EWAdams]

If others choose to compete with it, that's their problem.

I'm an American and the BBC is the only source of news in the whole world that I trust. Its reach is truly worldwide and it is required by law to be politically neutral, something the US used to have with its "equal time" rule, but that Clinton cravenly abandoned.

Re:The BBC was here first.

[Toonol]

something the US used to have with its "equal time" rule, but that Clinton cravenly abandoned.

Because the 'equal time' laws were constitutionally unconscionable. Hard to believe that some slashdot poster, who would no doubt claim to be for free speech, would support government control of political discourse.

Happy to be AC when critical of Murdoch's

[Anonymous Coward]

Pffffffffff. A Murdoch is against 'State-Sponsored Journalism'? That's rich. For 8 years under W, their Fox 'News' Channel was surely 'State-Inspired', if not actually 'State-Sponsored'....

Murdock owns the news, eh ?

[noshellswill]

Perhaps he owns the past, also. His paper his print his past reality. Present, past .... then why not the future? Murdockonia! Pay or die, sucka. OOps too late. BAM!!! ....

The reverse?

[zogger]

Can you access NPR, ABC, (MS)NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox et al overseas for free? Or are they blocked? I really don't know, I just assumed they were available. Fox is the only one really talking about going to an all paid version online (which will be epic fail), haven't heard of any of the others saying that, and Fox hasn't started charging yet.

Re:The reverse?

[commodore64_love]

I've heard many europeans complain they can't watch TV shows on NBC.com or scifi.com or FOX.com or ABC.com. (And then they bittorrented the show.) I don't know about U.S. government-run organizations like NPR or PBS.

Re:The reverse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you access NPR, ABC, (MS)NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox et al overseas for free?

Nope, blocked. I can't even access some videos on YouTube due to stupid the regional restrictions on content.

Re:The reverse?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard many europeans complain they can't watch TV shows on NBC.com or scifi.com or FOX.com or ABC.com. (And then they bittorrented the show.) I don't know about U.S. government-run organizations like NPR or PBS.

Neither NPR nor PBS are government-run organizations. While they do recieve grants from the Federal government, it is not involved in the day-to-day operations of either organization. In fact, both organizations recieve the majority of their funding through private donations (both by individuals and through organizations). Just because an organization is not-for-profit doesn't mean it's part of the government!

I'll trade our over-the-air commercial networks...

[Simulant]

... for the BBC system any day.

Most cable too.

Hey James Murdoch

[FudRucker]

i hope you fall off your fat wallet and break your freakin' neck you rich bastard, and i hope the BBC, NPR, AP & UPI gives you nightmares...

Government solution, of course

[cdrguru]

The BBC is essentially an arm of the government. While they can often be commended on not toeing the government line, inescapably they cannot be considered completely independent of it. Of course it is impossible for a private company to compete with the government - the government service is tax funded without any choice by the citizens whereas the private company has to have voluntary customers.

It is much like the Obama healthcare "public" option. Publicly funded services will swamp privately funded ones and eventually the private ones will disappear. Yes, Fox News in the UK is threatened in this way by the BBC as insurance companies will be under Obamacare's public option.

The extreme endpoint of this is that there will no longer be any news service except those which are tax funded. If paying is voluntary, the "Internet generation" is going to say NO!!! rather loudly and private services will simply find something else to do. It is inevitable, inescapable and rather sad.

Re:Government solution, of course

[dave420]

Incorrect. They are not essentially an arm of the government. They're nothing of the sort. There's nothing like it, that I know of, in the US, so it's not surprising you don't know what it actually is.

Re:Government solution, of course

[sumnerp]

The BBC is essentially an arm of the government.

...

It is much like the Obama healthcare "public" option. Publicly funded services will swamp privately funded ones and eventually the private ones will disappear. Yes, Fox News in the UK is threatened in this way by the BBC as insurance companies will be under Obamacare's public option.

There are two fallacies here, one is the public funding leads to government control and the other is the public and private funding can not coexist. The UK experience plainly shows the contrary.

Both the BBC and the NHS are publicly funded but they both have their own constitutions, charters and governing bodies which control them independently of the government of the day. The British might chose to elect a government that decides to override these protections. Similarly the US might chose to elect a government that on the one hand overrides the constitutional protections of the press, or on the other hand one that decides to create some form of public health care.

The idea that the NHS would drive out private practice in health care was the fear of many doctors when the service was set up, but over the sixty years of its existence this simply has not happened. Health care in the UK remains a mixture of private and public provision. There is co-operation between the two sectors.

The position in broadcasting is even stronger. While the BBC started as a state monopoly broadcaster this is no longer the case. Independent commercial radio and television stations have had a long existence in the terrestrial broadcasting and have expanded further with the onset of digital. Ironically Sky a Murdoch company was until the recent onset of Freesat the sole supplier of digital satellite broadcaster for the UK. Companies have set up profitable healthy businesses in this space despite the presence of the BBC.

The BBC isn't 'free'...

[rickb928]

Ask the British taxpayers.

Dear Mr. Murdoch

[pandrijeczko]

I will ***GLADLY*** continue to pay the BBC TV license so that I can enjoy a reasonable amount of ***ADVERT FREE*** radio & TV programming, as well as for access to some good resources on the BBC web site.

What I will ***NEVER*** do is pay any money to line your dirty, profiteering pockets, especially now you've exposed yourself as nothing more than a whining maggot!

Oh, and ***PAY*** money for Sky TV that sits there feeding me advertising every few minutes? The answer is two words, "FUCK YOU".

Not commercial free

[xkcdFan1011011101111]

If BBC is commercial free, then why does my web browser tell me Double Click, Google Adsense, Quantcast, and Revenue Science are all watching me when I navigate to news.bbc.co.uk?

Oh, and there are commercials when I watch any video content on news.bbc.co.uk....

I don't disagree with BBC making some money off advertising to pay the bills, but they should at least be honest about it.

Re:Not commercial free

[Soruk]

BBC web content is only commercial-free within the UK.

Re:Not commercial free

[sumnerp]

They are honest about it, you just forgot that you were not in the UK

Sigh

[xA40D]

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.

seeing the lies

[zogger]

That's fairly easy to see on the mainstream new world order bilderberger news. Government press official being quoted..odds on to be lying, that would be anyone in the executive branch. It gets accepted as gospel and repuked back at you by the newsies, no matter how completely improbable or out to lunch sounding.

In the legislative branch, elected reps and so on, odds are..clueless and just drunkenly mumbling stuff they have no idea about whatsoever based on the lies some biz schmuck or lobbist/PR flack told them or their cheaply bribed off "aides" to say and that they sorta half remember. They just stick you with that stuff.

News reporter interviewing or quoting the big big biz schmuck..odds on lying, even if lie is suspected, reporter with blowdried hair just flashes the big smiles and repukes it back, sometimes with asinine "analysis" later one by a roundtable of previous and now much older blow dried and lacquered (and plastered) bilderberger re-pukers. They are now distinguished drunk old re-pukers.

All the odds of lying go up drastically if the subject has to do with a lot of money (the more the money amount is, the more are the odds of the principles involved lying about it somehow, current example: any dang thing whatsoever from the Fed or Treasury or casino bank) or some event or another which would prove to be an embarrassment or illegality committed.

THOSE latter two are pretty much pure lies all the time, the easiest to see. As in, when is the last time anyone official just slap admitted to guilt or major screwup right off the bat? Never, ever, ever, nevah happens, goes from the simple small town cop being a sadist beast and the chief defending his actions automatically, while everyone can stare at the bloody videotape, all the way to lying about profound events with huge international repercussions like the "tonkin gulf attack" which never happened, or the "huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and saddam and osama both did 911 together honest we swear it they even bunk together on piles of yellowcake and the robot drone planes with biowarfare agents are warmed up ready to blast amerika in 45 minutes" type lies and so on.

The older I get the more cynical I get about this stuff because eventually the truth comes out about this or that big deal from the past, even if it takes decades, and you then realize how *much* you've been lied to in the past by the press, the controlled press I mean, the ones just that repuke the lies fed to them.

My default these days is..they are lying. Much safer to assume that than not.

Deliberate lies, or lies of omission, either or both mixed together. What they leave out that is important and DON'T report about is usually the very best stuff, the most important to know about. Or they get sorta sneaky about it, pump up some inane story about some drug addled celebrity hijinks (Britney pregnant with Michael's frozen sperm!! Wow! Some team scored some number that is a bigger number than this other team!! And that's a record!! that sorta drivel..), run with that for days, and stick the important stuff (if they cover it at all) with barely ten words to cover it buried in the newscast with a ten second low key soundbite or published on page 17, section D in the paper.

Modern news from all the big boys has about as much truth to it as big time rasslin'. It's controlled, orchestrated and scripted, designed to do anything BUT inform. At the best, cutting them tons of slack which they don't deserve, especially the public airwave hijack folks, it's designed to entertain and sell you little purple pills and soap flakes and over priced ego big dick shiny cars, at the worst, and what I think is the major reason it even continues in the form it is today, is it is deliberate propaganda to keep the serfs faked out, and to keep them occupied with each other and pointing fingers at each other for someone to blame for all their mostly self inflicted wo

Why?

[tthomas48]

Why oh why aren't we investigating News Corp for antitrust? This guy is publicly asking his competitors to be anti-competitive. What exactly do you need to do to be investigated these days? Isn't that the definition of anti-competitive, trying to convince your competition to fix prices for the benefit of existing market players?

Re:Why?

[makomk]

Bear in mind a few small facts:

• The regulators' attitude towards anti-trust enforcement is influenced by the government of the day
• News Corp and its head honcho Rupert Murdoch controls a whole load of news sources, and Murdoch isn't afraid to influence how said sources report on stuff. Like, say, the current government's performance.
• Labour and Murdoch were pretty close to best buddies when they came into power, from what the news commentators could tell. In fact, Labour had a habit of deliberately leaking stuff to the Sun, possibly as a form of favouritism

"Paying for Content"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has to put anything on the web, free or for a price, and nobody has to read it. As a long-time newspaper subscriber, the understanding in the past was always that the subscription price paid for printing and distribution, and advertisers paid for content. Often enough, newspapers are given away for free to people willing to pick them up (a hazard is people who take them directly to the recyclers). Newspapers are now suffering not because of "free content" on the web, but, the drop in advertising revenues. But, in my area, the local newspaper got in trouble because of ownership that wanted a high ROI: strange idea: newspapers in their entire history have never had a large ROI. Bottom line: generaql news has always been "free" -- if we (society) start charging for it, that will be a change, not the other way around as I frequently see suggested.

I really want local newspapers to continue, because nobody else will report real local news and local corruption. Maybe we do need a new model to support local reporting, but, I'm not convinced that the old model can't be made to work. We just need to convince the Murdochs of the world to stay in some other business where they can make more money-- real estate or banking or whatever.

Ignnorance is... cheaper.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is essentially a drive to keep poor people ignorant.

I can't believe it could be seen in any other way, to be honest. It is an attack on the right to know what occurs in the world around them.

Essentially "news for a fair price to those that value it" translates to "those that are under budget pressures cannot afford to get it", which of course further translates to "poor people must remain ignorant".

GG, Murdoch.

Not Clinton

[Nicolas MONNET]

If you're referring to the so-called "fairness doctrine," that was flushed down the crapper by Reagan.

You're trying to say US News is shit.

[leftie]

I get my news from the BBC regularly because US news is shit.

Just helping you get to the point.

Because you forgot them, GE crushes you

[leftie]

General Electric (NBC/Universal) dwarfs both Fox and Disney.

Fifth largest corporation in the world.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/full_list/

Disney is #60, News Corp is #70

You don't actually like western style government

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States was founded on a simple idea: the government actually should have very little to say about how you run your life.

It meant that if you did something stupid, you suffered or died.
It meant that if you were clever you could get rich
It meant that if you worked you might pay your way in life
If you didn't, it meant that you might not have enough food to live.

If you don't like it that way, you're free to try to change it. But don't pretend the founding fathers meant for our government should ensure all were taken care of and that if harm came to you, that you would be provided for. That never occurred to them.

Frankly, I find the people who espouse these types of "please take care of me" to very personally needy and think everybody else is responsible for them. I think you should be allowed to espouse your viewpoint. I think I should be allowed to mock you for that viewpoint.

Real freedom is exhilerating and scary. That's why most people don't really like freedom. They always think the government should "do something" about it. That's not freedom.

Remember this axiom: "The power to succeed is also the right to fail"

Evolve or die

[Kagetsuki]

If people are using a free service and not your paid service, then a the least you can determine they don't see enough value in paying to receive your service than usign the free service. If you are lucky, that's because your prices are simply too high for your content, or your payment mechanism is too difficult, or something like that. If you are unlucky it's because your actual content is bad, in which case you have nothing worth charing for to begin with. I don't read much foreign or English news outside of Slashdot, but I get news on my phone in real time. There is the free Yahoo news service but I also subscribe to the Yomiuri which if I remember correctly is 63 Yen (like 65 cents US) per month and has a lot of good content. If your content is good enough and your price is cheap enough people will willingly pay for it, it's as simple as that.

he's actually wrong!

[sg_oneill]

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.

Re:he's actually wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Have you seen what he has done to 'The Times'? It has become the Daily Mail, with better English to disguise the right-wing ranting a bit.

Murdoch scares me. He is one of the few persons I would cheer for if he got assassinated.

Mart (posting anonymously because I modded on this thread)

Re:You don't actually like western style governmen

[shutdown -p now]

"American style government" != "Western style government", though it is certainly a subset, and rooted in largely the same philosophy.

Americans didn't invent neither republicanism, nor democracy, nor rule of law, nor individual rights, nor "no taxation without representation". And all the processes that have ultimately resulted in Democratic West as it is today have started, and yielded results, long before 1776, and on a different continent.

In particular, see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and Dutch Republic for some more well known examples.

IN other news

[Anonymous Coward]

R Murdoch fathered CEOs are a threat to independent CEOs whose fathers are not named R Murdoch

I'll pay

[flunfla]

Here in the US, my only source of news is NPR, and I pay for that every year by 'subscribing' to my local station during their pledge drives. I'll gladly subscribe to the BBC to get my world news from a world class organization, if that's what it takes to keep Murdoch and his minions away.

Use the links, Luke

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had followed the link to the WP article on RBGH you would have found a somewhat better explanation of the whole thing with better sources (here). It still doesn't exactly define what kind of "known false" information was supposed to be in the report; in fact, the article and sources I read seem to indicate that the reporters were more concerned about true information, which they thought had significance to public health, being withheld from the public.

Re:Use the links, Luke

[__aagmrb7289]

I did read the entire Wikipedia article. That's why I made the comments I did. Notice how they were very critical of all aspects of the article? You don't pull that shit out of the air - you actually have to check.

on the other news

[ariefwn]

free oxygen on earth provided by Mother Nature made it 'incredibly difficult' for private manufacturer organizations to ask people to pay for their breath...

Sorry, nobody is unbiased

[SmallFurryCreature]

Just look at the slashdot page. Read the article about the Indian satalite? Note how the BBC does NOT report that the satalite did what it was supposed to do and was nearly a year in operation. No, instead they make a snarky comment about India spending an insignificantly small amount of their GDP on a space program that keeps its scientists busy and not leaving for greener pastures in the west.

Could the British BBC possibly be a little bit biased against their former colony having a space program while they do not? Nah. British reporting is not biased against Israel because those pesky jews kicked their butts post WW2 and upset all the carefully aranged middle east politics that had kept britain in control by having the natives fight each other.

Everyone has a bias, it is created by how they were raised, what version of history they read in their history books. Britain has a markedly different version then the rest of the world.

To give you the most basic example of just how engrained bias can be, take this. Palestine, is this the original name of the area now known as Israel? Answer, no. It was RENAMED after the second jewish uprising from "Provincia Judaea". History records (not biblical) show this name change. Of course the "original" name was already the name giving by ROME, an occupier. Yet a LOT of the argument about the current conflict from the BBC point of view tries to make it appear that Israel is the newcomer. It is, from a certain point of view.

For an even clearer example. What is the name of the continent to the west of the BBC studio? America? Really? So it had no name before europeans discovered it? When americans complain about immigrants, the story change significantly if it became "Immigrants, complaining about immigrants".

There are three free news papers in Holland. "De spits", "De Metro", "De Pers". It is intresting to read the news in all three of them. The first two are mostly in the business of reprinting press releases while the third on occasion does its own reporting (well, at least translates someones elses reporting). What is intresting to note then is what is included, what is excluded and on what page.

The recent war in gaza is an obvious example. Amnesty released a report blaming both sides for attrocities. You might argue with the report, BUT if you are reporting on said report, then the facts are that both sides get blaimed. That is not what all media reported however. A few said focusses only on the blame on Israel, a few mentioned in a single line that Hamas was also mentioned and a few mentioned the full story. ALL reported the facts, but by choosing what facts they reported, they showed bias.

Often bias is needed to keep an article readable, if you mention every option, every opinion then you would need a forklift to carry a newspaper. You can't go over the entire history of religion and the world everytime you mention the middle east (despite the fact that this entire history of religion and the world make the situtation what it is).

If you want to watch the BBC's reporting and see if it is unbiased you should attempt to look at it from the position of someone with whose opinions you do not agree.

The truth, the whole of the truth and nothing but the truth. It is the SECOND bit that is the kicker. I am the sexiest man. This is the truth. The whole of the truth is that " I am the sexiest man, in my house, right now".

If you think the BBC is unbiased, then you need to become more skeptical.

Because the current model works, more or less

[ZmeiGorynych]

I watch BBC because they don't have to struggle like mad for popularity, so they can afford to do a wider range of programs, and keep advertising minimal. I can't stand commercial TV as it's firstly, 80% fucking ads, and secondly, the programs are cheap stuff designed to appeal to the biggest possible audience (i.e., morons with ADD), such as Big Brother. On BBC, you get a huge range of documentaries, at least some investigative journalism, and all sorts of delightfully quirky stuff.

The thing I have against subscription channels is that empirically, they are all shit (from my point of view, of course-YMMV), so there must be strong commercial pressures causing that. And they are even more shit in the US where there is no real competition from something like the BBC, which serves to confirm my thesis.

You can't compete with free unless you lie

[m2f2]

Just pump up your sales with ads of snowy mountains etc, and do not tell anyone of those nitrate levels, higher than standard tap water, and you're done.

Also, why not *advise* using that bottled water for infant feeding?
If nitrates grow plants, just imagine what wonders might be done with kids...

BBC

[mxh83]

Personally, I don't care. Ever since I learned that BBC announced the collapse of WTC7 before it actually happened, I knew they work in collusion with the media police at the highest levels. UK is one step ahead of the US, just look at the ridiculous number of cctvs, it like they have taken it upon themselves to make the stuff in"1984" a reality.

As an American

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd gladly pay the BBC license fee if given the opportunity. I decided to stop consuming mainstream US media after the 2008 primaries, which actually represented what passed for a high-water mark in reporting here. CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all horribly corporatist and biased towards the powers that be. Nowadays, I get my radio news from the BBC world service (either from my satelleite radio or from podcasts) and from the daily BBC World News broadcasts on BBC America.

There is simply no comparison between the reporting from the BBC and from the mainstream American news organizations. There are fewer fluff pieces, and actual news stories that the US media simply won't cover are done in detail. Additionally, the lack of commercials for dick pills every five minutes is icing on the cake. If the BBC ever wants more funding, they should simply let non-British people pay the license fee. I already get most of the good stuff for free, but if I could get Top Gear and a few other shows legally it would be nice. I understand there are licensing issues with soccer broadcasts here, but you can keep that nonsense.

Until then, I'd like to thank you limeys for providing the best English-language news on the planet.

My CAPTCHA for this post was "RETARD". If I believed in signs I'd be depressed right now.

Foox nuze

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox news brings me such important news such as the health status of Brittany Spear's puppy and how evil them liberals are. Do I get an increase in my chocolate ration now?

It's not free

[papershark]

BBC News is not free. I pay for it with my taxes and TV licence.

(both) Murdocks are idiots

[omb]

If he succeeds in interfearing with the BBC does he think that will stop ITV, LeMond, AFZ, NZZ.

That these idiots are in charge of so many content and media corporations is a disgrace and danger to democracy.

Once again, the real blame is to be firmly laid at the door of corrupt and flacid governments and regulators who should have prevented these guys getting a near monopoly in the first place.

Actually

[Phoghat]

from the you-don't-trust-the-gov't-to-report-news-fairly?

Actually, I don't trust anyone with the last name "Murdoch" to report the news fairly!

Entirely constitutionally legit; even required.

[EWAdams]

The equal time laws only applied to those media that used a public resource, the broadcast spectrum, which is regulated by the federal government. I don't want public resources being used to promote one particular point of view or another. I want them to be used for politically neutral purposes -- which the news is SUPPOSED to be.

Your right to free speech does not include a right to use a public resource for the purpose.

profiteering

[DaveGod]

What he is complaining about is that he can't have his cake and eat it. The BBC was there before Murdoch made investments in UK media. That investment was substantially cheaper due to the existence of the BBC - he paid a price and made decisions that factored in the competition from the BBC. Yet now he complains about not being able to achieve the profits he might if there was no BBC.

It's tempting to draw conclusions about him having a sense of entitlement to reap monopoly rents, a sense that he is entitled to run his business in an environment of his choosing with no "unfair" barrier holding him back. The mentality is not uncommon in powerful people who are used to getting what they want and who base all their thinking on heavily summarised "executive level" information that is disconnected from customers and the reality on the ground.

This isn't some crybaby rant. He is well aware that the BBC was and is part of the media environment in the UK. The BBC is simply in the way of his control and profit, and since he can't buy it, he is trying other ways.

The BBC's funding is independent of Government???

[slyguy135]

Right, so if I don't pay the licence fee I won't be committing a crime and spending time in a Government-funded prison... Oh, wait, I will, because of Government-mandated laws (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/legislation.jsp).

And now there is discussion by the Government about who the licence fee should go to through a process of "top-slicing" (http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/minister_speeches/6180.aspx/) [which, by the way, Murdoch Jr. agreed with the BBC in opposing because he doesn't want the Government to gets its fingers in more pies; I guess he's not such a rent-seeker after all].

And it's not like the Government decides every so often how much the TV licence should cost. Except, of course, it does.

Please think and check before you post.

To all the deluded fools defending the BBC...

[taxevader]

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371706-details/Yes,%20we%20are%20biased%20on%20religion%20and%20politics,%20admit%20BBC%20executives/article.do
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html

And straight from the horses mouth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm

compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5640693/BBC-expenses-list-of-salaries-earned-by-BBCs-top-managers.html

http://www.clearchannel.com/Investors/Documents/161.pdf

maybe a litle compensation is called for...very little. why cant companies understand that if they reduce the executive pay, they could be more profitable. i guess the execs wouldnt be as profitable...hrrmm

FREE NEWS?

[AmigaMMC]

Free News? Last I checked the website was filled with advertising.

Murdoch can use his billions of dollars to buy a first class ticket to Wyoming and come kiss my ass.

Re:The BBC's funding is independent of Government?

[91degrees]

No. You'll pay a fine. The government won't even prosecute you. |it will be a private prosecution by TV Licensing.

Not that I see your point. The government sets the amount Taxis are allowed to charge and if you don't pay for a taxi journey then you'll be charged with a crime by the government.

Re:The BBC's funding is independent of Government?

[slyguy135]

I was responding to the statement of your GP, viz. "the government is not involved in the collection of the license [sic] fee", which is demonstrably false. Are you disputing this, despite what I just said? Also, the licence fee ends up in the Government's Consolidated Fund, which is then disbursed to the BBC as the Government has deemed necessary.

Also, just because you brought it up: do you disagree that not paying the television licence fee is a crime? I would love to hear your justification for that one.

This issue is already complicated enough, so at minimum we need to make sure we are dealing only with facts.

democracy pwnage rule 1

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor masses must be kept ignorant of the machinations of the powerful.
This is democracy pwnage number 1.
The murdochs are the kingmakers of the Western World.
And they like the rest of the ruling elites class are disgusting undeserving clueless shits and probably cannibals.
So I am pleased they have decided to wall themselves off from the Web behind a paywall.
Not that the BBC is a bastion of truth - but it does have its moments. Like when they proved the war was a sexed up lie and blairio-mandelsohn knew it and neccesitated Dr. Kelly's asasination.
I think that if ogliarchs can't compete with free then well they should fuck off with their shitty shit shit and not be helped out by government.
Bring on the true free market.

-- Adam SMith

I Love the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

It's terrific. Radio 4 alone is worth the licence fee.

That said, it does stifle competition as it has gauranteed income. I'm not so sure the private sector could do as good a job, so maybe thats a price worth paying. Murdoch certainly has a good point, although obviously his motives aren't necessarily the most selfless.

Streisand effect URL is http://news.bbc.co.uk/low

[spage]

Bookmark http://news.bbc.co.uk/low

No ads, worldwide news, works great over dial-up, is fantastic on a phone (no smartphone? Get Opera Mini for your idiotphone at http://operamini.com/ ). It crushes every other non-local mobile news source.

And in passing you'll learn who won the Ashes in cricket.

Propaganda is not news

[BeCre8iv]

The BBC has not been an impartial news org for years. If ever. While Murdoch produces innuendo, fearmongering and low-level smut, the BBC is the taxpayer funder mouthpiece of the state. I see no conflict here.

Re:The BBC's funding is independent of Government?

[91degrees]

I was responding to the statement of your GP, viz. "the government is not involved in the collection of the license [sic] fee", which is demonstrably false

Only in the same way that the government is involved in the collection of all other bills.

Also, the licence fee ends up in the Government's Consolidated Fund, which is then disbursed to the BBC as the Government has deemed necessary.

Indeed, but that's not a point you made.

Also, just because you brought it up: do you disagree that not paying the television licence fee is a crime? I would love to hear your justification for that one.

I believe that laws have been passed by a legitimately elected government that make it a crime. Society has deemed it useful to have a publicly funded broadcaster, and the way to fund this is to have a payment from those who use the service. People are not forced to pay this since nobody is forcing them top own a television.

Re:The BBC's funding is independent of Government?

[slyguy135]

Indeed, but that's not a point you made.

How did you quote me making it then? I am merely supplementing my original points which still stand.

I believe that laws have been passed by a legitimately elected government that make it a crime.

That's very interesting, but that doesn't my question; I wasn't discussing the rights and wrongs of the licence, only the facts concerning it. You agree it is a crime. That's all I wanted to know, because you also said

No. You'll pay a fine. The government won't even prosecute you. |it will be a private prosecution by TV Licensing.

which is ambiguous as to whether it's a crime or not. I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

Let me repeat: I was only concerned with the statement made earlier, not by you, that

the government is not involved in the collection of the license [sic] fee

The poster who wrote that has had the good sense not to argue with me. Let me make it clear for you: the licence fee is a tax which right now is mandated by the Communications Act 2003. How is the Government *not* more intimately involved in the collection of the licence fee than, say, when you agree to pay for groceries at the supermarket?

Re:The BBC's funding is independent of Government?

[91degrees]

Sorry, I'm just nitpicking the argument here. I'm not sure why it matters whether non-payment is a crime. Of course it is. But non-payment of any bill is a crime. It's nothing special about the TV licence. In that respect I don't see it as different from groceries. Not paying for them is a crime as well, and the government will punish you for it.

Certainly it's legally a tax and goes through the government but the fact that non-payment is a crime doesn't strike me as relevant.

It never ceases to amaze me...

[Benfea]

...how they have any credibility left after arguing in court that they have the constitutional right to fire reporters for refusing to lie. Sure, they do have such a constitutional right, but they can't exercise that right and claim to be a credibly journalism operation at the same time.

Despite this, there are plenty of stupid people in this country who are aware of this court case and its ramifications, and still continue to fall to their knees, open their mouths, and swallow whatever Rupert Murdoch chooses to feed them.

Re:The BBC's funding is independent of Government?

[slyguy135]

Fair enough, I meant it's a crime under the Communications Act; it's a provision the Government can get rid of without affecting any other "crime".

Just wanted to quash the myth that the BBC's funding is independent of the Government, as pleasant as that myth might be :) Thanks for sharpening up my argument.

Father / Son Irony

[Spinlock_1977]

About six months Rupert was saying his papers we're going to a paid model, and he sounded awfully darn sure it was the only business model that really made sense. Now his son is saying the model won't work because other organizations give it away (read 'advertising supported model') for free? Anyone else enjoying the irony here? Somebody better explain to Rupert how this tubey-thing works.

Liar

[jotaeleemeese]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8230332.stm

Who are part of the British establishment?

[jotaeleemeese]

Do they use black helicopters also?

Really ....

If it isn't broken....

[jotaeleemeese]

... etc.,etc., etc.

Pro Labour bias? Really?

[jotaeleemeese]

The BBC lost a director general trying to probe that the Iraq war was a fabrication of the British government.

Ironically, Mr Murdoch the father announced his support for Labour in two general elections by means of his porno light tabloid, The Sun.

What the Murdochs want is to be the king makers in UK politics without having to worry about an independent organization actually delving deeper in the UK's political landscape.

Which demonstrates.....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... that the BBC does not have a particular bias imprinted.

Most folks out UK don't understand how BBC works

[jotaeleemeese]

"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."

The BBC has a completely independent governing body.

The UK government of the day assigns a budget but after that it has no editorial input whatsoever.

Any UK government trying to interfere with the BBC editorial content would find itself in the middle of a major political scandal, and most likely would not succeed.

Your opt out is called computer.

[jotaeleemeese]

Watch the BBC to your heart's content with the iPlayer service, it is entirely legal and you don't need to pay a licence fee.

Re:Your opt out is called computer.

[vivaelamor]

Yet? I thought there was serious discussion going on about widening the scope for funding to include computers or internet access.

The BBC has no political bias.

[jotaeleemeese]

For every example of some right wing nut complaining about this there is a counter example.

This pseudo argument about the BBC being biased is getting tired (just for starters, they lost a director general for not toeing the Blairite line about the Iraq War)...

Re:The BBC has no political bias.

[vivaelamor]

just for starters, they lost a director general for not toeing the Blairite line about the Iraq War

Isn't that counter to your argument? That someone loses their job for keeping their integrity is usually touted as a major gripe with Fox News.

I happen to believe that the BBC is a good example of what news can be but I don't buy the bullshit that just because it is a good example we can't do a whole lot better.

You are self delusional.

[jotaeleemeese]

You sound like one of those wacko conspiracy theorists that live in perpetual fear of conspirators that do not exist.

But hey, if that makes you happy, who are we to object?

Re:You are self delusional.

[vivaelamor]

I concur that is what the GP sounds like. I would argue that it is still a valid opinion and in no way lessons the argument against the way the BBC is funded.

To all Murdoch apologists: read this.

[jotaeleemeese]

From News Corp's own reporting of this in The Times:

"
"Mr Murdoch, who is also the chief executive of BSkyB, 39.1 per cent owned by News Corp, made clear that he believed that broadcasters such as Sky should be freed from the long-standing requirement to produce impartial news.

He argued that âoethe mere selection of stories and their place in the running order is itself a process full of unacknowledged partialityâ. The impartiality rule was âoean impingement on the freedom of speechâ.
"

Full article here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6814178.ece

If you want a world where news are delivered without balancing or opposite points of view to your won, then Mr Murdoch is your man.

I am not saying it. He is saying it himself.

Re:Most folks out UK don't understand how BBC work

[vivaelamor]

Thank you, this is the first post I have seen which is favourable to the BBC but doesn't resort to misinformation. What worries me is that so many of the people who talk complete nonsense about the BBC claim to be from the UK.