Les Tricoteuses - Part Deux

[BornSicky]

new thread to discuss phonehacking scandal.

DC hands off the Beeb
I'm not a beeber, never have been, but I know how much it means to many people around the world who are even worse off than us when it comes to freedom of the press, independence of police and politicians etc. and at the moment, that's saying something.
so back off, toryboy.

Oh I thought it was Mr Beige McMullan as the second whistleblower, triplets?

(I'm fympathetic really, but ...)

yy edam - we were talking about that JM speech on the other thread - it was foul at the time and just as foul now.
DC just admitted to be being biased because he worked at ITV. well - like to see someone pick up on THAT too!!!

DM outselling Sun on a Saturday, really? Mmm that's interesting Nancy Adds a bit more to the jigsaw puzzle of how and why NI were looking to restructure their tab portfolio to save costs...

when i was driving back at lunchtime they had a Times columnist on 5Live who was on to have that "BBC too powerful" rant and that was the subject of a Melanie Philips rant in the DM the other day, too. i've just heard DC utter something along those lines and some (no doubt friend of NI) Tory backbencher say the same thing. just quite a few voices at the same time trying to give the beeb a kicking, showing they really want a) to kill off the BBC and b) to give Sky free reign to grow to complete dominance of the UK broadcast market.

DM doesn't outsell them every sat - but often enough now for them to capitalise on it.

Buzz - The Sun's new Sat TV mag has been a disaster for them - cost a fortune and lost them sales - it's actually a good, slick product but (bizarrely) it's too polished for Sun readers who just want TV listings and no frills - the hope is that by now throwing Fabulous into the mix as well they'll recoup some lost ground

nancy a tv listings mag is too difficult for sun readers? dear lord

The BBC has very good programmes, but the BBC is subsidised by the people and its huge presence means that many other independent (non-state) media organisations struggle to survive, since they receive no subsidies from the people. A free society needs plurality of press with lots of different opinions available. The non-state press has to survive in the commercial world (it receives no state subsidies and protection). If it has to try and compete with the state funded BBC, then it will inevitably struggle.

Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail has argued this case very well. He says that the majority of the people are small 'c' conservatives. I think he is right. There are many progressives, but they are not the majority. Yet the majority subsidises media that sometimes looks down on the common people and their small 'c' conservatism. There is lots of sneering at the Sun and the Daily Mail, and these millions of readers subsidise state media that is often in opposition to their views.

It is a free society and there are lots of rich progressives who could open up newspapers that reflect their views. Let them see whether their views can create profitable newspapers in the market. Let us see whether the common people (so often sneered at) will buy their papers and agree with their views. In a free society, there is nothing to stop progressives forming newspapers in order to provide Kinnock's "balanced press". Let's see how "balanced" the public really are. Let's see which papers and TV stations the public will choose to watch of their own free will.

Roy Greenslade of the Guardian disagrees with Dacre

www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2007/jan/23/dacregivesthebbcbothbarre

Dacre's speech, referred to by Greenslade, is here

image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2007/01/23/CudlippDacre.pdf

The Mirror was renowned for its clear TV page years ago when we had just three channels. They redesigned it and loads of readers complained. How can three columns be confusing?

We were taught it in college as an awful warning of what happens when you startle your readers with change.

The UK has plurality of media, despite the BBC. So an argument that a state funded broadcaster prevents plurality is clearly untrue (not least, I suspect, because state fund flow through the BBC to independent production companies).

The primary threat to this plurality has been the likes of Murdoch buying up every corner of the private sector to head towards a monopoly. A monopoly in which damages for libel are considered part of the cost of doing business and papers apparently publish stories they actually know are untrue.

claig -i really do not buy that argument. we pay a small annual fee so everyone in this country has free access to news, entertainment, children's programmes unadulterated by blinking ads, culture and sport

• equally the beeb has been a training ground for some very talented people who have gone into and grown the independent sector
• equally it commissions content from a number of independent producers
• equally it represents the UK around the world through WS which is seen to present global news from an honest perspective - which arguably stops even more people listening to propaganda in their own country and trying to blow us up
• equally it enables all the people in this country to see at least some sport without having to be able to pay (this is one of Murdoch's biggest crimes imho)

btw for professional journalists, your own political opinions don't necessarily colour your coverage of business and current affairs. some years ago, famously, the owner of the FT commissioned research into the political affiliations of FT readers. the vast majority voted tory, unsurprisingly. but there was a small minority of labour voters. when asked to explain who on earth these labour voters were, the response came back "They, sir, are your staff"

'because state fund flow through the BBC to independent production companies'

but who commissions their programmes? Who determines what will be shown? And we're not talking about drama and Strictly Come Dancing, we're talking about politics, news and current affairs programmes that inform and influence the public's view.

We live in a free country.
Blair has got millions, Kinnock's got a bob or two, the unions have money and there are very many rich progressives who could open a paper and compete against Murdoch. It's not only Russian oligarchs who have money, there are some progressive oligarchs too.

Lots of us think the FT is progressive. Xenia says that the FT is not right wing.

What about the Baphomet Conspiracy though, Claig, eh? That's why you don't like them really, isn't it?

I don't know that one. What's that about? Is it something to do with the Director General?

Thought DC spoke well delivering his statement, till he wouldn't answer questions directly, and got himself into a tizzy. Having a tantrum undoes all the good he tries to do !

Thought Clegg and Osbourne both looked shifty, but maybe that's just them.

Agree with poster who said Ed could have spoken more cleverly.

Am loving Tom Watson !

Sorry, people, am waaaayy behind !

Lizards, the lot of 'em...

The BBC had to close its online education plans. Commercial companies complained to the EU about competition policy.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6449619.stm

We don't live in the Soviet Union, where the state extends its arm into spheres of commercial interest.

Have you been drinking, BitOfFun, having fun?

Is anyone else getting a bit tired of the 'I wasn't aware at the time' excuse ?

That was the Murdochs main claim yesterday, and today it appeared to be DC's regarding AC.

Does no-one take responsibility anymore ?

Claig, bless you but in the light of recent events, I think the idea that the BBC is the bogeyman rather than the Evil Empire of R & J Murdoch is rather odd.

I have just been watching your arguments re media - imagine what our television and radio would be like if the BBC was disbanded tomorrow. There would be almost nothing that I would watch or listen to, and don't tell me that a commercial company would be able to replace it, we have only to reflect on the programmes put out by Sky etc. At the very least the BBC has required standards watched over by a Trust.

yeah, apparently you can be paid for running a multi-national corporation without actually having any responsiblity for the way it is run.

Did you see the MPs let them get away with claiming, all po-faced, that they give all new employees a handbook including some ethical guidelines? As if that's enough? Yeah, because we all know companies worry far more about ethics than about performance...