Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.")
That's OK, I criticize James Murdoch's News Corporation for providing false news.
I know which I would rather not be accused of.
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.
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.
Qxe4
The BBC reporting on someone saying the BBC is shit.
That sort of objectivity is why they need to survive just as they are.
I write bullshit
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.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
'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?
'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!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
What many people don't understand is that companies don't want to compete. Ideally, they want to form a monopoly and then stop innovating (because that's a cost) and raise prices (because that's profit). If they can't form a monopoly, they want to form a cartel with their main rivals. Murdoch and Son realize they can't buy the BBC, so they're taking the cartel approach whining about how they "can't compete". Actually what they're saying is, "Our plan to raise prices won't work, as long as someone doesn't. Join the news cartel, and we'll all profit."
The Internet is all about free access to information and news. The BBC, PBS, NPR, etc are all public organizations that give out free information anyway and usually funded by the government and donations.
News Media Corp is a private corporation and doesn't seem to get the free news and free information philosophy of the Internet. If they charge for access to news and information they will suffer for it. Then only the wealthy will be able to access it, and some of the wealthy will refuse to pay and go to free sources instead.
Also when a news or information source is pay only and private, it cannot be used for citations anymore as a professor cannot log on to verify the source because they cannot afford the fees to every pay source of news and information and usually require the student to use the sources that the college provides for peer reviewed news articles and papers.
Murdoch is shooting himself in the foot with such a move.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
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.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
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?
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
Uh-oh. Somebody better tell Perrier, Evian, Pellegrino et al that it's impossible for them to make money by selling water!
So.. it has come to this
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.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
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.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
bring bak the ponies!!
Prostitutes are demanding that everybody else stop providing sex for free, as it reduces the demand for their paid services.
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.
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".
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
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.
-- Flavio
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).
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.
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.