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

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?

[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: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: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?

[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."