Comments:
Rupert Murdoch is a media genius; His son is ..well...daddy's boy. We might as well give all of Einstein's offspring Nobel prizes as listen to this overpromoted office junior. Eric Skelton 29 August, 2009
Watching Skys output here, I can see most is not actually true, Skysports so far this month has come up with any number of football transfer stories quoting "Sky Sources" which in my mind is a couple of hacks in the office bouncing stories off one another. Pulling a players name out of one hat and then a club out of another. Stick to what we know, Sky will either make up news or put their own biased slant on stories. Mike August 31, 2009

Here Here Mr. Murdoch! The State controlled organ of media does not participate in the marketplace of ideas. It forces fees on everyone and delivers a sole point of view. if someone disagrees, they have not the resources of a forced tax to broadcast the opposing view. Whatever one thinks of Mr. Murdoch's politics is irrelevant, all should be concerned where news becomes an organ of the State, rather than of free individuals. It is not wrong for Mr. Murdoch to be self interested, it is wrong that all in the media aren't self interested enough to have their ideas sink or fall on their own merit, rather than on a forced tax. El Jefe August 31, 2009
Here here to what Andrew from SoCal said...American posters please stay out of this debate (read it yes, but do not post). I posted a comment on a science magazine website about US healthcare and a lot of Brits logged on to chastise me with zero knowledge of our system. I likewise believe we Americans should stay out of this conversation. We fought a war once and are now amicable exes. Would you get into your ex's business? I think not. (I hope to visit you soon though!) Jerry August 31, 2009
As I have said before paying the BBC licence fee is for me like being foirced to contribute to the IRA "hat" in a bar in Kilburn in the 80s. I utterly disagree with pretty much all that they stand for, yet am compelled to pay as the consequences of non-payment would be worse than swallowing my pride and my ethical and moral reservations. The BBC having become so highly politicised in the worst sense of the word mhas lost its right to make claims on the average person's purse since there is a very good chance that the person paying will feel the same way as I do about their politics and worldview. If those who share its worldview wish to continue to contribute, fine it is their money. But for the rest of us, the Tories should once elected free us from payment of this unfair poll tax. Billy Barnett. August 31, 2009
I do wish the next Conservative Government would abolish the license fee and let the BBC live in the real world. I do not listen to or watch the BBC. It is left wing and anti USA and anti Israel. It extorts ?3.5 billion per annum from we taxpayers whether we watch it or not. That money is used to pump out pro EU, anti American and 'Michael Moore' type versions of world events. It is also a money trough for its own overpaid employees as recent scandals have shown. I do not care what stance the BBC takes but why should I pay for it ? The BBC licence fee is extorted money. Can one imagine having to pay a compulsory tax to say Tesco when one always shops at Sainsbury's ? Same situation.
I am no fan of the Murdoch Empire because they are in search of their own monopoly. But I watch all the TV I want for free and if I wish to subscribe to Sky or Virgin etc I can do so freely - and not be prosecuted for avoiding any fee Mike August 30, 2009
Government is nothing but organized crime in which politicians (via the army of like-minded government employee) forcibly take your freedom and your property to keep or use as they see fit, skimming off some of your property for themselves and redistributing some to people who vote for them. News Corp and other private entities cannot seize your freedom or property unless they become a wing of government like the BBC. The Third Way socialism (where politicians extort private entities to act on behalf of government officials) implemented by Hitler, FDR and others in the 1930's is alive and well. It is, and always will be, us against government employees and those they press into service for them. The only healthy government is one whose politicians fear its well armed (physically and intellectually) citizens. SharpShtik August 30, 2009
As an American, I can tell you that the BBC, though left leaning, does attempt to provide accurate news and to better the world. The Murdochs, who are citizens of neither of our countries, care about their own money and nothing else. The Fox network does its best to whip up hysteria and promote conflict between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' in America. This is all for ratings and has nothing to do with the common good. Joe August 30, 2009
Are you suggesting that ABC, CBS, CNN don't tell people what they want to hear? They wouldn't be guilty of the same thing 100 years ago? You don't like FOX news so they are either racist now or 100 years ago. The difference between the BBC and FOX is that one is a service provided by Big Brother and the other has to pay it's own bills.BJ
Rupert Mardoch is a stupid and greedy conservative. He is just trying to harm BBC, the only independent News organization in UK, so that in future he can try to grab it for his own agenda. What a crook. Hope the UK people are not that stupid chou August 30, 2009
FOX News has made a fortunate telling people what they want to hear. Everyone knows that if FOX News was around 100 years ago that they'd be spewing racist rhetoric because FOX News tells people whatever they want to hear, regardless of it's consequences for society or whether it is right. It's ALL about the money for FOX News BJ
Under cover of objectivity, government programming will always promote greater government control and increased tax burden on citizens for services they don't need or want. That is in the interest of the government employees who run these services. Marcia August 30, 2009
The difference between BBC and BSkyB is that you don't have to pay for the latter if you don't want it or like it. It lives or dies based on making its customers happy. BBC, on the other hand, has no need whatsoever to present anything valuable to the public because its customers are politicians - not viewers. Oh, and you have to pay for the BBC whether you want it or not. How honest can you possibly be when you report on your own paymaster? (and then ask them for more money and regulations hampering your competitors) The rest of the world has other options because of satellites. BBC is a relic. Just like Pravda Bruce Stravinsky. August 30, 2009
Thank you all so much. After reading this article and the comments, I immediately turned to Fox and looked for advertisers to support. It's sad that most of you are so scared of thinking or having to make your own decisions. I work with a person from England, he likes to say he is English not British. He hates Fox as much as you. He repeats the socialist party line as if it was the only truth. Anyone who doesn't agree must be stupid or an agent of some mysterious right wing conspiracy. Since he doesn't even understand the content of what he is saying, he always responds with personal attacks. Enjoy your oil. Dan August 30, 2009
Can anyone here refute James Murdoch's point that the taxpayer-funded BBC has no business buying a majority stake in a travel guide publisher? Paul August 30, 2009
For all it's faults, if the alternative to the BBC is the "fair and balanced' Murdoch news i know what i want. Paul Kingsley August 30, 2009
I would like to suggest that my fellow Americans stay out of this debate. Let the Brits sort it out for themselves. They don't need our stupid advice. The notion that there is any parallel between tv in the UK and tv in the States is strained to say the least. And to my mates in the UK; please don't listen to the over-blown cliches about FOX News over here. The fact that their audience has grown enormously in the last few years can be due to at least two possibilities: 1) the American public is a bunch of Right-wing gun-toting religious bigoted whackos who FOX is feeding the raw meat they want to gobble up, or 2) Fox is the only news group willing to question why the Yankee lemmings are rushing lock-step toward the cliffs! I have actually gone days here in the States without seeing a single gun-toter, or bunch of white-hooded guys riding around in gas-guzzling pick-up trucks ...hard to believe isn't it? Andrew from So California. August 30, 2009
Padraig, Hitler, Khan, Hannibal, The Romans!!!, Alexander the Great, and Murdoch. Are you serious right now? Don't compare him to Melon or Rockefeller or somebody, he is much more like Genghis Khan and every last Roman. Give me a break. J August 30, 2009
It beggars belief that the Murdoch fiefdom can crticise the BEEB for a 'land grab'..talk about pot calling the kettle black....they have strangled the satellite network and stuffed it full of rubbish with increasing Advert %'s.
Along with this the creeping amount of premium rated content is ripping off all subscribers. Shidifu August 30, 2009
paying twice on sky for total dross just cancelled my times paper money saveing,one year new laptop,this is murdochs big problem. Terence Sullivan August 30, 2009
Alexander the Great, the Romans, Hannibal, Genghis Khan and Hitler - they all wanted to dominate the world. Rupert Murdoch has tried to improve on their global efforts in terms of being The Force in media. In many ways, he has had an appallingly negative effect in the UK and US by virtue of exerting political pressure by media. Essentially, he has been the modern day William Hearst of newspapers, whilst having the shadow political influence of Joseph Kennedy. Who cares what vision he or his family have for the world? That's called megalomania. However, having got into financial difficulties again, the dynasty is desperately trying to save itself by hypocritically complaining about the "dominance" of the BBC. Padraig August 30, 2009 Before anyone is allowed by law to read a newspaper of their choice they will have to pay for the Guardian even if they do not wish to read it. Makes sense doesn?t it? Marky August 30, 2009 The biggest flaw with the licence fee is that it makes the BBC dependent on the goodwill of politicians. Thus Government, rather than the licence fee payers, is regarded as the paymaster. The BBC sacrificed its independence when it caved in over the WMD affair. It needs a strong Director-General who will concentrate on the core business, of making programmes the public want. The BBC Trust is a travesty, which will consider complaints only if they do not have to do with "editorial and creative content". Which rules out most of what people complain about. And the way the complaints process is operated also needs radical overhaul. But, we don't need James Murdoch to tell us what we already know. Barry McCanna 30 August, 2009
Well you would expect this from James Murdoch. Sky is a monopoly and of course he will want any competition dismatled! David August 30, 2009
We've found over here in the US that our National Public Radio (NPR) and our Public Broadcasting System (PBS) pushes a patter of cartoon-like pablum of 'serious-minded adults'. They sound so 'reassuringly mild and intelligent' to the ears of wannabe smarties eager to self-display their magically gained "intelligence" simply by having listened to any NPR/PBS outlet. So easy. These publicly-funded intelli-clowns keep their cozy, highly-controlled sounds so falsely upbeat as to stifle all inquiry into their stealthily-embedded lies which they cleverly produce for us, their would-be compliant kool-aide drunk audience out here. BBC is similar, cleverly boring in it's government committee-approved presentations, paid for by the endlessly deep pockets of the collapsing British economy. Hapless Brits do what many Americans do: cling to their MSM engendered religion of Big Daddy Government Knows All. They desperately cleave to BBC, CNN, or NBC: to fearfully keep at safe bay any real news. Orwell knew his stuff. Miguel
"This coming from a man whose religious clique has decided views on the rest of us non-believers." So you are saying "all Christians" prejudge you some way? Are you not prejudging "all Christians" yourself by assuming that? J. 30 August, 2009.
Pot calling the kettle black? Thomas Mortley August 30, 2009
Living in the USA these days, I could be subjected to Fox News - part of the Murdoch empire. I shan't go into why I refuse to watch it other than to say that the use of presenters like Beck,Hannigan and, to a lesser extent, O'Reilly makes me realise that, for all its many faults, the BBC is fortunately not in the same league of ultra right-wing/quasi religious/synical gun law support as Murdoch's media. In this age of exaggeration for effect I merely invite opponents of the BBC to tune in to Fox News USA. Most exiled Brits I know over here feel exactly the same revulsion. The latest travesty was when Beck denounced Obama as a 'racist'. This coming from a man whose religious clique has decided views on the rest of us non-believers . Ken Hall 30 August, 2009
Simon Coulter thinks you would "pay only for what you want" under a Murdoch regime. Simon, have you ever heard of bundling? To get what you want from News Corp's pay TV arm anywhere in the world, you have to pay for many channels that you don't want, because you can only pick and choose between bundled packages of channels. Be careful what you wish for, Simon. The NHS was never the envy of the world, but the BBC is, and always has been. Keith McLennan
The UK has the best publicly owned bradcasting company in the World. The last person to take notice of is a member of the Murdoch clan, whose only interest is accumulating a greater powerbase at the xpense of honest reporting. I don't and never have watched Sky or any other of the Murdoch networks and would advise everyone else to do likewise. I can go to many coutries around the world and watch well produced articulate and intelligent programmes from the best publicly owned bradcaster around.The UK has the best publicly owned bradcasting company in the World. The last person to take notice of is a member of the Murdoch clan, whose only interest is accumulating a greater powerbase at the xpense of honest reporting. I don't and never have watched Sky or any other of the Murdoch networks and would advise everyone else to do likewise. I can go to many coutries around the world and watch well produced articulate and intelligent programmes from the best publicly owned bradcaster around. John Scruton 30 August, 2009
It's not Fox news, it's Faux News. Thomas Mortley 30 August, 2009
Murdock is partly right but misses the point that:
It is bad enough for the public having to tolerate the left wing, politically correct, minority focused, corrosive brainwashing we endure 24 hours a day, WITHOUT THE ADDED INSULT OF BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR IT!
SCRAP THE LICENCE FEE. James Bradley 30 August, 2009
Obviously Murdoch is speaking out in the hope of getting something. As for some of the other comments about which side Murdoch is on, well the answer is that Murdoch is only on Murdoch's own side. I see comments that he is a fervent supporter of Bush but on this side of the Atlantic he favours Zanuliebour, so goes with whomever is going to give him the better deal, in effect a prostitute. Hersh, the BBC is as independent minded as Bush is an avid Obama supporter. Auntie does exactly as Zanuliebour tells it, it has the various monikers of Brown Broadcasting Corp, Brown B*llsh****ng Corp, and some other tasty names to reflect its subservience to Zanuliebour policies and thinking. Its international news reporting id very partisan, and on many occasions positively deceitful. Zanuliebour has vitually free access to airtime and definitely toes the party line and handles ministers with kid gloves, but roasts the opposition parties and is way back in the queue when a govt scandal breaks to dare to castigate or criticize Zanuliebour and/or ministers. when the expenses scandal broke, it must have been about 10 days before it ventured critical comment, and then mild in terms. I do not pay my license fee for them to be Zanuliebour's lapdog/mouthpiece and distort news to favour the govt view or be politically correct. I can do without that labour tax when I do not view them that much, because they are now so inaccurate on what they report! The nagging feeling is, 'what is it they are not telling me?'. News reporting should be balanced, but then in the UK I know what wing most papers are in and they all break the rules, to varying degrees. And then there are the lavish use of taxpayers money (licence fee) in its expenses and entertainment, with a surprisingly large in house entertainment budget, bugger the taxpeyer. Hugh 30 August, 2009
Murdoch is a toerag. Both he and his father - and anyone else - should be banned from owning ANY media of any kind unless they and the company are UK tax payers. The BBC may have many things wrong with it but it does not screen adverts and it is not a tool in the Dirty Digger's plan to control all the Uk media. Murdoch - you are a scumbag. I have cancelled my Sky+ subscription in disgust at your plans. Paul Atherton 29 August, 2009
Rupert Murdoch is a media genius; His son is ..well...daddy's boy.We might as well give all of Einstein's offspring Nobel prizes as listen to this overpromoted office junior. Eric Skelton 29 August, 2009
I am so glad to see how James Murdoch's comments have spectacularly backfired on him. its about time the British people started standing up for themselves and their institutions. it has been rightly said that the BBC is a world class, highly respected instituition. We should never sit back and let a blood sucking viper like James Murdoch try to besmirth it for his (and his family's) own gains. Kris 29 August, 2009
eraint : 'This is worse than in Russia'? Not trivialising the issue then? I loath the bloated overpaid BBC but get a grip man! Eric Skelton 29 August, 2009
Of course, speaking as a completely impartial observer Murdoch and his News Corp with no vested interests in seeing the BBC broken up, are speaking from the heart - if I believed that I would be certifiable. Every time I see Murdock I am reminded of the megalomaniac villain, Elliott Carver, and his Carver Media Group. Peter Marton 29 August, 2009
The bloated BBC may ironically soon face the market quicker than it expects - brought about by its own technical developments. The BBC has been at the forefront of pushing terrestrial digital TV, but it is not generally realised that the licence fee could be rendered redundant in a very short time since all BBC TV channels could be sold now as individual subscription channels accessed by currently available digital set top boxes that accept prepaid viewing cards.
Then we will see how the market values its services and what it really needs to spend to provide those services. The sooner the better. Edward Forster 29 August, 2009
Murdoch
Pot
Kettle
Black Paul C 29 August, 2009
You can like Murdoch TV or you can hate it. But at least you have a choice whether to pay for it or not. If people love and trust the BBC as much as they say then surely they will continue to pay for it on a voluntary basis. Of course we shouldn't allow any corporation to become so dominant that they can unduly influence the market, but that applies to state-owned corporations as much as private ones. If we only end up with one news channel, either through anti-competitive practices of a private company or a state run organisation removing the economic incentive for others to compete, then we are on the road to serfdom. The only route to individual freedom is through fair competition. Stephen August 29, 2009
Pitiful special pleading from someone who only has his job because of who his father is. The creationist vs evolutionist analogy is embarrassingly silly - he just seems to object to the existence of any independent institutions - presumably on the grounds that they create competition for viewers rather than competition for advertisers. If he doesn't like the way we do things in this country, why doesn't he (to put it politely) go somewhere else? Andy 29 AUGUST, 2009
The BBC is now just a mouthpiece for the labour government and the politically correct liberal elite. Paul Hardy 29 AUGUST, 2009
murdeauxbolleaux. Toby Wilkinson 29 AUGUST, 2009
We live in a lunatic left wing country where we need to ask permission from the state before we are allowed to watch tv. This is worse than in Russia. Scrap the licence.Geraint Hughes 29 AUGUST, 2009
I am sure that he majority want the BBC licence tax to be abolished. douglas 29 AUGUST, 2009
If the BBC were to close down tomorrow I would miss their services. If all of the many media outlets of the Murdoch empire were to close, I wouldn't miss them one bit. The fact that to watch cricket, football and rugby you must give money to Murdoch is not in the consumers interests. ljd 29 AUGUST, 2009
Anything that will further the break up of the BBC gets my vote. The BBC has been a tool of the left for as many years as I can remember and has played no small part in belittling and destroying all things British, or to be more accurate all things English. More right wing views are needed in broadcast media to counterbalance the pernicious socialist influence which has brought this country to its knees. Murdoch is right wing so all power to his elbow and smash the BBC Steve
These comments are barbed because the Murdoch's only close competitor is the BBC. If there were no BBC, we would be all watching Sky tv and paying a large payment for it. The BBC licence fee is less than the payments to Sky. The way Sky controls sports coverage is almost a monopoly but not mentioned. Why? william knights 29 AUGUST, 2009
And what exactly has James done to deserve the position he finds himself in? To the manor born and survived in a corporation his siblings fled from. And a comment for Tony who seems to think the Times is quality, when exactly did you last pick up a copy? It is full of drivel like the rest of the print media. The more power Murdoch Media Inc get the lower the standards and the fatter their profits will be. At least the BBC has a hint of democratic oversight which is what we pay for surely. Changing that would be like making those who live in remote areas pay for the full cost of their roads, postage and other services. Sometimes a flat rate for all for public service is the most efficient and only effective way to operate, and thank goodness there are a few channels with no advertisements. Don't like it, don't buy a telly, the choice is yours. SAM .29 AUGUST, 2009
Compare the bias of the Murdoch-owned Fox News with the BBC World News channel and you will immediate perceive why the BBC service is esteemed in the USA and Canada. The Murdoch SKY network offers little value in terms of either high quality or culturally stimulating material. The BBC has developed into a truly world-class organisation. Let's keep it that way. Brit living in Canada since 2006. Vic Morford 29 AUGUST, 2009
As a US citizen, I would warn any and all to avoid any connection with any Murdoch. Fox News in the US is essentially a voice for the Neo-Conservatism ideology as well as a hysterical voice whipping up support for the privileged and powerful individuals and corporations. They are still firm backers of George Bush and his craziness. News Corp entities are as slanted in ideology as they are vicious. They do lasting damage to American Democracy. I love the BBC. Its independent, tough minded and thoughtful. Embrace anything "Murdoch" and you'll find these qualities gone forever. The BBC is a treasure to others. WH. Birmingham, Michigan, USA Hersh 29 AUGUST, 2009 29 AUGUST, 2009
Matt, if you have evidence of political bias at the BBC, you can address it publicly - that is your right. So you can make your "BBC are all leftys" arguments and hold them to account ... IF.. you can substantiate them
Are you seriously trying to claim that Newscorp doesnt follow a right wing agenda because the sun supported labour? Labour is centre-right in case you've been living in a bubble since john smith died.
If you have such a principalled objection to paying the licence fee, sell your TV and dont pay it. Or is it really just because you want to save a few quid and carry on watching pets do the funniest things in HD courtesy of mr murdoch? Nick
Although no fan of the BBC, which has become the government's Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, I would hate to see the television industry in Britain dominated by Newscorp. jg
Apparently Mr.Murdoch said: "The consensus appears to be that creationism " "the belief in a managed process with an omniscient authority " is the only way to achieve successful outcomes."

I don't know if Mr.Murdoch's perception is true. Surely any authority the BBC has is an effect of all the feedback individual licence payers and other citizens concerned may voluntarily contribute or donate. So I see this so-called "omniscience" Mr.Murdoch attributes to the BBC as more likely to be the properly managed result of millions of individual ?inputs??ie individuals and families pay licence fees voluntarily and/or we can all contribute to eg Trust consultations at one end of the scale and/or "haveyoursay" debates at the other.

I don't think it's fair or wise for any business to concern itself with "micro-managing" our traditional cultural norms and expectations without being respectful of the generous voluntary input of citizens. We are free to buy what we want and express our opinions as we will and these are very valuable. Thus Citizens like to freely browse any market and quite naturally seek and find the easiest and most efficient way to both inform each other and be informed by each other, whether we have an appointment/contract/licence or not. Perhaps we are becoming "spoiled" " but UK pubic services are designed to attend to such like concerns first. It's not an issue. It's what we normally do!

So in my view, continuing support for institutions such as the BBC may actually help keep all of us safer in the market from unnecessary or inappropriate regulatory burdens that may spoil all our jobs and lives
Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley 29 AUGUST, 2009
I'll send this again;

Apparently Mr.Murdoch said: “The consensus appears to be that creationism — the belief in a managed process with an omniscient authority — is the only way to achieve successful outcomes."

I don't know if Mr.Murdoch's perception is true. Surely any authority the BBC has is an effect of all the feedback individual licence payers and other citizens concerned may voluntarily contribute or donate. So I see this so-called "omniscience" Mr.Murdoch attributes to the BBC as more likely to be the properly managed result of millions of individual “inputs” –ie individuals and families pay licence fees voluntarily and/or we can all contribute to eg Trust consultations at one end of the scale and/or "haveyoursay" debates at the other.

I don't think it's fair or wise for any business to concern itself with "micro-managing" our traditional cultural norms and expectations without being respectful of the generous voluntary input of citizens. We are free to buy what we want and express our opinions as we will and these are very valuable. Thus Citizens like to freely browse any market and quite naturally seek and find the easiest and most efficient way to both inform each other and be informed by each other, whether we have an appointment/contract/licence or not. Perhaps we are becoming “spoiled” – but UK pubic services are designed to attend to such like concerns first. It’s not an issue. It’s what we normally do! Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley


So in my view, continuing support for institutions such as the BBC may actually help keep all of us safer in the market from unnecessary or inappropriate regulatory burdens that may spoil all our jobs and lives.
Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley 29 AUGUST, 2009
There is no doubt that a neutral and objective broadcasting body is a valuable asset and worth some demand upon the public purse. If the BBC were just that then fine but unfortunately it has been allowed to indulge in an extension of its legitimate role, which is essentially to educate and inform, into areas of wider entertainment and downright self indulgence of dubious merit best left to the commercial provider where the acceptance of the consequential risks is more appropriate. The BBC seems to be incapable of controlling costs even in its dissemmination of news. Why for instance do we so frequently see a news desk refer to an outside journalist for comment when all we see is another body complete with crew standing in some anonymous location offering observations that could just as well have been delivered by the anchormen/women on the news desk. Peter.
"Matt on August 29, 2009 at 01:22 PM"

Have you actually understood what James Murdoch is suggesting? Your opinion might be that the BBC is left wing (an organisation designed to benefit everyone might be left wing by definition but that's a different argument) but the BBC is required to be balanced by legal statute- this is ensured and enforced by politicians' comment, 'feedback' programmes and facilities for views such as yours to be heard within BBC broadcasting. It may not be perfect but broadly speaking it works. James Murdoch however is expressly asking to be allowed to broadcast news with a political bias- perhaps you need to think again. Mr Orwell 29 August, 2009
1. As Cicero said: cui bono? I am sure Mr Murdoch's comments are not intended to produce benefit for the British - but rather a benefit to his bank account.
2. This comment, made above is quite correct: "By supporting the BBC, the British public provide an invaluable service to the entire world." Actually, the BBC does more for Britain at home than and welfare service; and more for the nation abroad than the FO.
3. Has anyone actually seen the nonsense and rubbish that Murdoch's media outlets publish abroad? He may do a few quality things (The Times) but by and large it is unadulterated drivel.
4. Public broadcasters are needed to st the standard - which they generally do. Occasionally they go haywire, but they set a better, higher standard more frequently than the commercial broadcasters.
5. Has anyone watched US commercial TV recently? It is no wonder Americans behave as they do. Tony 29 August, 2009
At first I was chocked with the headline on SkyNews: "BBC online is a threat for newspapers that want to charge for news access". So I logged on to
skynews.com to find what's behind the "shocking" news - I found that no one else was broadcasting this news (BBCWorld, CNN, Aljazeera, Euronews) and by itself it drew my suspicion that this was no news. On skynews.com I found that James Murdoch is the Europe&Asia CEO of News Corporation (a conglomerate company owning other companies like SkyNews, Wall Street Journal, MySpace, etc). Convenient...I see a conflict of business interest here! My conclusion of this "news" is that it is no news but instead propaganda from owning company NewsCorp. to put pressure on legislating against BBC and for the profiting of its own holdings! Shame on Skynews for reporting it as news on TV, once again showing that large corporations use, what viewers consider reliable news channels, to advertise their own profit agenda.
My 2nd point is that tax funded BBC is as much of a threat as the new free newspapers distributed at all the major train/metro stations in European capitals - yes, they rocked the boat for the traditional newspapers (e.g. Evening Standard) but none of them drowned! This is part of business: change and the capacity to re-invent the business model. Similar claims were made about the advent of internet and just look great it is today for business :-)
Journalism and reliable news: is this the end of an era or the opportunity for a new era? ms11af 29 August, 2009
I bet the Times wouldn't post any of these comments. If the roles were reversed the BBC would always publish critical comments even against the corporation's interests. That is the nature of an organisation under charter, compared to an organisation of dog eat dog profiteering. Spread the word- comment online and stop buying Newscorp. Mr Orwell 29 August, 2009
Nick, the BBC is the one guilty of Bias and drivel, it is well documented that the BBC is hugely left wing, the only people denying it are the BBC themselves.
I admit that fox is a little extreme right but Sky is not so right wing as to be unfair. Remember that the Sun (also owned by newscorp) has backed Labour in the last few elections where as the Times is inevitably conservative. The difference of course is that I can watch Sky 3, Sky news and Sky sports news for FREE and CHOOSE to pay for the rest. As a Conservative, I am FORCED TO PAY for the BBC to ram down my throat, their idiotic left wing ideology! Matt 29 August, 2009
Start taping Radio 4 now- that way our children can have the opportunity to listen to something that is not purely of entertainment value. Or we could stop worrying about acquiring knowledge and opinion- its far too much effort anyway. Lets just sit in front of Fox News, Sky One, and Babestation and dribble in to our microwave dinners. All hail the Murdochs. Double think, double dirty diggers. Mr Orwell 29 AUGUST, 2009
**Murdoch targets BBC** Heck, for a minute there I thought they were going to buy it - damn! My God, it would be bloody as the new owners Slashed and Burned at the Corporation. Huge fillip for the state privatisation coffers. No licence fee.
Pay only for what you want - or go elsewhere for free... YUK!! More Murdoch media - I don't think so. 290809-12:58 Simon Coulter
Nobody can seriously suggest that the E.B.C., sorry, freudian slip is not biased.
The bias towards the S.N.P. is palpable, the latest poll suggesting the majority are against the decision by Kenny McAskill is an example.
Ilistened on both days to the 'phone in on goodmorning Scotland and more than 90% agreed with the justice secretary. Seumas
As someone who is regarded as to the right of Margaret Thatcher I support the beeb wholeheartedly. Murdoch's News Corps is the threat, he disregards the fact that they have a monopoly on satellite in this country. It's constant price rises put the licence fee in the shade. News Corp is driven by greed not a desire for fairness. IAN
The BBC is unique in the world at large as an organisation that stands as unbiased, and invites scrutiny as such. News Corporation/ Fox however gives the world uber right wing drivel, and dumbed down celebrity dross and general scuminess. If murdoch wants to complain about one of the worlds few media good guys, then he will always struggle to make his point when his family is one of the worlds most insidious and aggressive media dynasty's. Nick
I have no problem with public service broadcasting but that is not what the BBC is about. It is a self serving nepotistic bureaucracy that conviscates almost ?4 billion a year from tax payers to hand back to us Radio 1, Jonathan Ross, East Enders, numerous repeats and keeps fat salaries and pensions for friends and families. Its news reporting is irredeemably supportive of the big state and related institutions and suppresses individual choice. Simon
Ignore James Murdoch! The Murdochs' communications organizations are disseminators of media trash, propaganda machines for right-wing politics, and nemeses of intellectual discourse and entertainment arts. By supporting the BBC, the British public provide an invaluable service to the entire world. Gerald West
Between the two of them. "Dirty Digger 1 & 2" they have ruined sport worldwide. The Football Association has fallen hook, line & sinker for their filthy lucre and yet no one has caught on to their antics. Why the Hell do they not return to this homeland and teach their fellow countrymen how to play cricket ! Ulsterman
One of the whole purposes of the BBC is that it was founded to provide independent , objective and non biased news coverage . This is specifically intended to be such an alternative to the likes of the Murdoch media . When the BBC was founded it was set up as an alternative to the media of the day as well as a pioneer in new forms of technology and a quality provider . Murdoch's media was not around then but equivalent , but better quality , media was . However it still meant that the British people needed an organisation like the BBC .
What Murdoch peddles is total and utter CRAP and dangerous crap at that . Irrespective of whether the BBC existed I would not read or watch any Murdoch media so I certainly see Murdoch's attack as utterly futile . It's Murdoch media that's the big problem - not the BBC . The World would be a far better place without the Murdoch media . Britain without the BBC . Britain dominated by the Murdoch media . A horrific and nightmarish world - shades of A Clockwork Orange and then some . Although the BBC is far from perfect and it certainly needs a good solid boot up the back side it is a good alternative to the likes of Murdoch .
Murdoch media is a commercial purchase option - a consumer option - as such we can choose whether to buy it - whether it is of sufficient quality . IE. it's a cost benefit analysis . The thing is the cost is very high for a quality that is very low . What people are purchasing is programming of very low substance , vacuous news programming that is biased , poorly researched and poorly presented , vacuous entertainment programs etc. etc. etc. . The consumer looks at this and says "NO WAY !" "I can get far better quality at a far cheaper price elsewhere !" so the consumer goes elsewhere . What Murdoch wants to do is to get rid of all these elsewheres . However even if he did that he would not get the customers because people would still not pay for crap . What's happening at the moment is that Murdoch's chickens are well and truly coming home to roost . Murdoch snr. has played a big part in the demise of the USA and elsewhere and , largely indirectly , in the economic crash . We are now at a time of massive paradigm shift - it's very much evolution kicking in - monoliths , such as the Murdoch empire , are the dinosaurs - they are being evolved out of the picture . Setups that are structured in completely the opposite manner are being evolved into the picture . The BBC license fee is a tax , so the only control that we , as a consumer , have is to demand that the license fee be well spent .
1) it needs to be far more professional . General presentation at times can be far too familiar - not standing back . There is far too much - low cost low value - reality TV and radio . The jingle on BBC World Service Radio is dicky . And likewise there are too many dicky programs . I largely avoid the BBC because of all the dicky content . I also avoid parts of it because it has become rather biased - I suspect that it was got at post the Hutton enquiry .
2) it needs to be far more efficient . This is a management issue - putting in proper management - getting rid of the management that just gets in the way - putting in good editors , for example . Localising management decision making - utilising the ownership principle .
3) it needs to largely get out of commercial activities - it is not meant to be a commercial organisation - it is meant to be a taxpayer funded organisation of general benefit to the public at large - not in business and not to niches .
4) it needs to have a clear picture of where it is going , of it's form and shape , of it's charter - of it's raison d'etre . It needs to be able to picture itself and to be able to see itself within the larger World scene .
5) it needs to be a producer of quality . It does produce quality - that's without a doubt - but there is also a lot of crappy programming coming out of the BBC and it needs to change it's approach - this is largely management change - and , yes , it needs good management .
6) diversity is very important . Progressive evolution works through diversity . The BBC , because it is tax payer funded , has the opportunity to be diverse KIm L.
Please stop bashing the BBC - its the only TV and radio that I watch. Most US programs are crap, especially the comedies. Please save the BBC! Steve
James Murdoch is hardly an unbiased commentator without an axe to grind - is he? The reason he hates the BBC is because they are so SIMILAR to News Corporation. Both have - and want - monopolies. The BBC with the iniquitous licence fee, and Sky with its stranglehold over satellite TV. Both want to spread into all the media, from TV to the internet. Both are internationalist, instead of nationalist. The BBC refer to 'British' troops, or the 'England' football team, for instance, instead of talking about 'our side'. And Rupert Murdoch even chamged nationality for commercial reasons! And both are EQUALLY politically correct, biased and untruthful - just look at the way News Corporation and the BBC both slander the BNP. The only thing News Corporation care about is making even more money. This is immoral. They should care about the people of this country, and want to give us the best service at the lowest price. Instead they even want to charge to access their website. Just wait till they do and the number of visitors they will get will completely vanish. Look Rupert and James - life is NOT about money, it is about being NICE to one's fellow nationals. Of course the problem is that they are not British, so they don't love, really, truly, LOVE, this country and its people. Timon
The BBC is without a doubt the best broadcast media organisation in the world. There is just no other company that compete with it. Its programmes are sold all over the globe and it is BBC news that people turn to to get the most unbiased reporting. I'm not surprised that competitors want to bring it down. Far better to have the BBC than a private media company whose support for a political party in an election could alter the result of that election. The potential for corruption and cronyism is huge. Keep the BBC as it is. Ollie_Cromwell
Father and son should be barred from our shores, non EU and non contributors, would love to see there financial details laid bare. David Wilson
""james allen on August 29, 2009 at 11:26 AM""
Why do you want to tear down the BBC? Can someone at least make some reasoned argument as to why the BBC is a problem- I don't even know what you think the problem is- let alone agree with you. Please give me something to chew on! Mr Orwell
If the Murdochs hate the BBC so much, how come they carry so much BBC-derived content on their satellite service? Not just every BBC channel, but also the UKTV channels and others who rely almost solely on old BBC shows. One week of BBC original programming shows more creativity and imagination than a year on Sky's shallow, repetitive and derivative channels. Nialli
I didn't ask for Murdoch and his minions to take over the media in this country. The BBC was coping quite well before he poked his oar into the water. The only result of this was that the BBC has lowered its standards in programming to equal the rubbish on Sky. Johnty
Does anyone remember Blair's visit to Oz prior to the first election he won? Mainly due to Murdoch's media support. One of the first pieces of Nu Labour legislation was to hugely benefit the Murdochs. This was soon followed by government ministers visiting Murdoch in the US. The BBC have lost much respect in the past few years and rightly so but they are far more acceptable than the corrupt Murdoch empire, which has spewed out more rubbish than the government he supports C Donnelly
Murdock's sour grapes, he would like complete monopoly,all the better to make Britain as his family would like it. Something to be avoided. Jane Prior
money grubbing news corp must be tamed. Does this man have no shame? No one elects news corp to have the undue influence over politics and elections that they do, yet they are allowed to continue this... Break news corp up and hand the bones over to the BBC to run, no more than one newspaper or TV channel should be owned by a single group. Jack Tar
Having been a subscriber to sky with its constant repeats and overwhelming amount of promotions give me the beeb anytime. I now have free view which is an even bigger selection such as Aljazeera English, Russia today and France 24 which carry a much wider scope of news. Sky news spends all of its time on really insignificant rubbish whilst there is a really important world out there. The real key will be the internet and this is where the beeb score again. Their website is amazing and hopefully if it can avoid too much influence from Zanu Liebour then we can be proud of it. Murdoch and his tribe are the last ones to talk about manipulation they are the universal masters of it. michael
Hypocrite. Land grab = Fox corporation. Unaccountable institutions = Fox corporation. Go back to Oz. john
Not too sure about Murdoch's comments but definitely feel that the BBC have become the current government's poodles. I was censored on Nick Robinson's blog this week for suggesting that his holiday substitute Laura was balanced because she wasn't just feeding the line from No 10. It appears many others were similarly censored [the BBC describe it as "moderated" ] Murray Croft
Break up the News Corp monopoly and ban any of the greedy, smug, self serving Murdoch clan for holding directorships in any media organisation for a generation. Sam
No need for a debate - the BBC should be scrapped. If we organised a national drive and stopped paying the licence fee - they would fold overnight. That is people power which is the only way left of getting anything done in this wretched country. James Allen
LOL, Mr Wright. All news is biased and you're naive to think otherwise.
Now, given the choice between the liberal Left (eg. BBC, MSNBC, CNN, SKY) and conservatives (eg. FOX) I'd pick conservative every day of the week. If only the conservative side of news was permitted in this country. John
Do you know what you are saying about political bias? The BBC is streets ahead of any commercial print or broadcast media provider in maintaining independence. Taxpayer's money doesn't fund the BBC. The BBC is funded by the license fee and exports of valuable content to other countries. I don't understand people who complain about paying less than 40p a day for the best television and radio service in the world. Do you work for a commercial broadcaster??? As for a boycott you can avoid Sky News, Sky Movies and Sky One because the BBC offers alternatives at next to no cost to the consumer but try convincing people not to watch footballDo you know what you are saying about political bias? The BBC is streets ahead of any commercial print or broadcast media provider in maintaining independence. Taxpayer's money doesn't fund the BBC. The BBC is funded by the license fee and exports of valuable content to other countries. I don't understand people who complain about paying less than 40p a day for the best television and radio service in the world. Do you work for a commercial broadcaster??? As for a boycott you can avoid Sky News, Sky Movies and Sky One because the BBC offers alternatives at next to no cost to the consumer but try convincing people not to watch footbal. Mr Orwell
Now we are going to lectured to by "DIRTY DIGGER 2" ! When is someone going to stand up to this gang of crooks, whose main objective on this earth is to fill their own coffers. Ulsterman
The murdoch brat is describing his own family's stranglehold on news reporting. Their news is always slanted especially about israel brutality in Gaza. The family is jewish after all. Phillipp Dunn
I am sure that James Murdoch would agree to leave the country and never work in the media again if:
i. His corporation was carrying out illegal electronic surveillance of my PC at Flat 4, 25 Clarendon Road, Leeds tel 0113 234 1087, including knowledge of files on my PC never shared with the outside world.
ii. He was receiving such information from the West Yorkshire Police, Fylingdales or GCHQ or any other third party tasked with illegally downloading such information without my consent.
iii. He was engaged in any way in using Mr John McArthur to organise surveillance of that flat for the benefit of his corporation. I am sure that Mr Samuel Allardyce's loss of employment in January 2008 had nothing to do with that and I am equally sure that M. Arsene Wenger's comments that he 'likes people who negotiate hard' was equally unlinked to that either........
I remain 100% confident that Mr Murdoch will agree to these terms, since if he could not, it would say that he was a confirmed criminal whose words in public fora would then be taken with the relevant contempt that his father, a US citizen, normally reserves for UK nationals who believe that this country is not an overseas outpost of the private world empire of that autocratic, dictatorial and extremely cruel man Rhys Jaggar
Fox News = Biased reporting Muppet journalists and terrible analysis.
BBC News = Biased reporting Muppet journalists and terrible analysis.
Get rid of em both... don't watch. Mr Wright
Nobody in their right mind would listen to the ramblings of anyone from the Murdoch family. Their record speaks for itself - self-serving, manipulative and pure greed. I have one message for him - go back to Australia, USA or where ever else it is you come from and ruin their culture and society John
totally agree with him. The BBC has always had a lefty bias, but recently it's reached fever pitch. Labour are ?big? government and the BBC is equally a centralistic lumbering project. Taxpayer?s money cannot and must not fund the sort of political bias we are seeing from our national broadcaster. It's almost laughable that the BBC is afforded the opportunity to self regulate and yet another Government (Sponsored) department oversees the commercial sector totally differently. The fact that the BBC unavoidably is the voice of the liberal, is absolutely fine, but the organisation as it is, comes with one VERY big problem. It's forcibly funded by ALL taxpayers. You can choose your daily newspaper, but with a TV License you're forced to pay for political persuasions that otherwise you'd prefer not to digest. The world is all about choice. If I don't like watching SKY sports anymore, I stop paying for it. With the BBC we ALL have no choice.
Doug Snowden
Long live the beeb. For all of it's faults so often highlighted in this paper it is still a thousand times more valuable than any of the trash peddled by this man and his father. Anybody fancy a boycott Sky (evil empire) campaign? Neil
suggest he goes to pastures new, he can al;ways change his nationallity to suit the situation and then inflict his advertising rubbish on his new compatiots. like you know who. Londoner432
"peter eisner, August 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM Long live the BBC and our freedom."
Surely you jest? M.O.
Advertising revenue for Newspapers is falling due to the impact of the Internet as an alternative source of information and the far more efficient advertising packages offered by the likes of Google. The advertising competition argument against the BBC is a smokescreen. If the public want an Orwellian, powerful organisation to fear with unwholesome involvement in the running of government policy take a look at Newscorp. - Government press releases via the SUN, - Surprisingly little state or police interest in crimes committed by Murdoch newspapers in using illeagal phone taps, - Competition between political parties to win the approval of Rupert Murdoch etc. etc. The BBC exists to broadcast quality content, Newscorp exists to make profit any way it can. Mr Orwell
The time is long overdue to take the Murdoch empire into public control and run by competent people committed to decent,intelligent broadcasting and reading.
The BBC must be brought under democratic and committed management producing high quality broadcasting. Will it happen? Not whilst our politicians cosy up to the like of Murdoch and crew. Roy
Shine Tv does okay out the BBC and that's a Murdoch owned company Jimmy's sister ! Ms Jeanette Eccles
The time is long overdue to take the Murdoch empire into public control and run by competent people committed to decent,intelligent broadcasting and reading.
The BBC must be brought under democratic and committed management producing high quality broadcasting. Will it happen? Not whilst our politicians cosy up to the like of Murdoch and crew. Roy
Of course the last thing Murdoch & News International would want is to dominate the media themselves. If any media organisation should have its power reduced it is News International Peter S
Murdochs comments are unreasonable. Would'nt father & son love to control our TV & press. That is what this is about. Long live the BBC and our freedom. The licence fee is great value to pay for quality media compared to Murdochs so called package of choice which to a large extent is low grade 'filler' Peter Eisner
James Murdoch's Newscorp is and always has been the threat to independent news publication. The BBC is one of the only remaining British institutions we can be proud of as truly world beating. We all enjoy it's output and pay each month about a quarter of the price SKY subcribers pay for Americanised, formulaic rubbish content. At a time when we are all questioning the contribution big business makes to society perhaps we shouldn't constrain a truly wonderful, INDEPENDENT and not-for-profit organisation purely to line the pockets of the Murdoch dynasty. Any doubters should watch FOX News. Mr Orwell
Why doesn't he just be straight with us and say he wants to charge for online content, after all this is what he's lining us up for. If the licence fee goes, so does free online BBC content, which is one of the main threats to News Corp. I'm sure this guy already has enh money, now go rest Mattoug