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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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."
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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?
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.
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)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
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.)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
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.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
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."
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.
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.
... 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.
However, since you brought it up
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
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.
Qxe4
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...
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."
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.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).