The politics of the News Corp referral

"When the upstart is too successful" - in what way is Rupert Murdoch an upstart? He's been running the Sun for as long as I can remember!

I thought the bit about stifling competition from Mr Murdoch was just a bit rich given his response when dealing with upstarts usually involves anti-competitive dirty tricks - just ask those at the Independent, for example.

Does nobody find it worrying that Mr Cameron's first vistor at No10 upon taking up residence was - ta da - Mr Murdoch.

I'm all for plurality in news reporting, but I don't think Mr Murdoch is - and that is not just alarming, but terrifying. Both New Labour and now the New Tories find themselves potentially in hock to a man who is neither a British citizen, nor an individual who has any democratic credentials insofar as the business of governemnt is concerned in the UK.

Solely from the perspective of the probity of future elections, and good governance, organisations like News Corp should not be allowed to dominate news reporting and opinion forming in the UK.

"the most powerful media owning family on the planet" The BBC right?

What are you worried about?

Come on Nick, get off the fence and tell us what you really think on this.

As somebody who slugs it out daily on the commercial marketplace, this blogger has a lot of time for the Murdochs, businesspeople who put a huge amount of skin on the table.

Especially when the principal competition in this country is the BBC, with its guaranteed income of billions of pounds per years from the license fee tax.

That is the really unfair competition that the Murdochs and others in the sector face.

PaulRM
'Does nobody find it worrying that Mr Cameron's first vistor at No10 upon taking up residence was - ta da - Mr Murdoch.'
Or that David Cameron's Alastair Campbell type creature is Andy Coulson who's ex-boss is - drum roll and hi-hat - Mr Murdoch.

' The editors of those papers will insist that they make their own editorial decisions and are too good at their jobs to allow their papers' stances to be determined by something like a referral to Ofcom. However, I wonder whether, the next time they happen to chat to their proprietors, the message they'll hear from Rupert and James is "I'm right behind this coalition. I hope you still are?"'

This is amazing coming from a BBC man, the bbc who's entire format is pro Labour & left of centre. The BBC is more political and self serving than any organisation in the country.

In fact, I believe you bring journalism into disrepute with this assumption that those working for Sky and their newspapers are mere puppets. As the BBC is so righteous let us have a strap on every item where a political journalist or news reporter comments stating their voting history and intentions and whether they are members of a political party. This is required on financial programmes on Bloomberg & CNBC when an analyst is discussing a stock. In your case Mr Robinson analysing political parties & their policies.

"Imagine how much harder they would be if the Sun, the News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times were to start shouting betrayal over Europe, defence deals with the French or going "soft on crime" or if they were to mock the prime minister daily for hiring "a vanity photographer" at public expense."

What, are you implying that you're swimming against the tide at the BBC then, in your efforts to drive a wedge between the coalition parties?

I think you're doing a sound job of that out at W12 all by yourselves, although ably assisted by that other state-propped up questionably funded organ, The Grauniad.

Maybe you need to invite Kevin McGuire on a bit more. He connects well with the plebs, doesnt he? That should do the trick.

Vince Cable did have a choice. The business secretary could have said that the proposed takeover raised competition concerns which the European Commission should rule on but not concerns about media "plurality" - whether the takeover limits the number of media voices. After all, he could have argued, News Corp already controls, even if it doesn't 100% own, the company behind Sky TV.

"Had he done so he would have infuriated many in his own party, given Labour another stick with which to beat him, his party and the government and put himself in opposition to the bosses of the Guardian, the Mail and the BBC, who recently wrote a joint letter raising their concerns about the deal."


Hmmm. If the Grauniad and the Mail were that bothered about plurality, maybe they ought to stick their own hands in their pockets and fund their own satellite channels. The BBC are bound to object because it potentially disturbs their state given monopoly and could potentially have an effect on being able to afford to send 400 people to Glastonbury every year.

simple protection of vested interests is all it is about.

Murdoch bet the farm on Sky and it worked. Had he gone down in flames, I'm sure there wouldnt be any of the moaning about it.

Will nobody rid us of this turbulent antipodean 'mate'? Of course he wants the BBC to be a neutered, castrated amputee because it is in the way of his world domination plan. Brave Cable but ways will be found to make Vince wince - you see!

Oh and by the way, where were the competition concerns when Gordon forced the marraige of HBOS and Lloyds?

Alright for one sector but not for another?

"Both New Labour and now the New Tories find themselves potentially in hock to a man who is neither a British citizen, nor an individual who has any democratic credentials insofar as the business of governemnt is concerned in the UK."

Thats because they're both headline-driven, carbon-copy professional politician-laden troughing organisations rather than being a true government of real leaders. Lie down with dogs and you get fleas.

Although I despise Murdoch and his interference in British politics, what News Corp are trying to do seems like normal business practice. The BBC is large enough to ensure that more than one voice is heard. The Russian oligarchs could be said to be providing another.

What could be argued is that the left wing needs a stronger presence in the media, a mirror to the likes of Adam Boulton.

It's a bit rich the BBC complaining about competition from Sky when they happily purchase highlights of sports events from them. Giving revenue to the competitor who probably outbid you in the first place is hardly good business practice. Sky are in the happy position of being able to bid secure in the knowledge that the BBC will subsidise their bid by buying the second hand broadcast rights.

I have no time for murdoch his paper the SUn they run a story , they were the only ones to, btw, about a kidnap plot of leo blair in Jan 2006, that was alledged to have happened 6 weeks before.

later that day the BBC reported that there were no charges , no arrests and no case.

It was convenient for PM Blair for this story to be aired as it distroyed F4J's reputation overnight.

Make of that link what you will.

What needs to happen is both Murdoch and the BBC brought back to earth about impartiality in broascast power.

its a good time to cut the licence fee
its a good time to cut Murdoch's share of Sky

much like lady T did with the breweries etc

"6. At 11:18am on 04 Nov 2010, Poprishchin wrote:
PaulRM
'Does nobody find it worrying that Mr Cameron's first vistor at No10 upon taking up residence was - ta da - Mr Murdoch.'
Or that David Cameron's Alastair Campbell type creature is Andy Coulson who's ex-boss is - drum roll and hi-hat - Mr Murdoch."

More like "sound of drum kit collapsing on floor".

Well, that proves...er...what? I've seen reports that Murdoch was 'one of the first' visitors but not 'the first'. But it was hardly his first visit to Downing Street. Unless it's a different Murdoch you're talking about. Would that be the same Murdoch who made 3 visits to see Blair in the 9 days before the start of the Iraq war? The same Murdoch who supported Labour for 12 years? The same Murdoch who, when Andy Coulson stopped working for him in 2007, was still supporting Labour?

Funny how Murdoch has only become the evil face of broadcasting since he switched sides.

12#

"What could be argued is that the left wing needs a stronger presence in the media, a mirror to the likes of Adam Boulton."

What, you dont see enough of Andrew Marr, Polly Toynbee & Kevin McGuire on the BBC already?

If the public wanted it, they would get it. It would be reflected in the viewing figures. The BBC already acts as a counterweight to Sky anyway.

And heres the best bit. Even if you dont want to watch the BBC, if you dont want to hear that left-wing counterbalance... you still have to pay for it regardless.

Unlike Sky or any of the Murdoch papers - if you dont want to hear what they've got to say, if you dont want to watch their programming... you just dont buy it. Doesnt cost you a red cent to show your disapproval.

Certainly doesnt cost you a criminal record and at least a thousand pound fine...

7 - "As the BBC is so righteous let us have a strap on every item where a political journalist or news reporter comments stating their voting history and intentions and whether they are members of a political party. This is required on financial programmes on Bloomberg & CNBC when an analyst is discussing a stock. In your case Mr Robinson analysing political parties & their policies."

Hard to resist, good call.

If we know that Murdoch supports the Tories/coalition then we can view his output accordingly.

The BBC has a 'neutrality charter' but is it neutral? A corporation that became bloated and puffed up with its own importance and sharing many of the spendthrift ways of Labour might be thought of as instinctively being against more business-like organisations. I doubt many would see Nick's blog as anything other than an attack on Murdoch and a call for the vested interests of the BBC to be defended.

Murdoch will never be happy until he has achieved world domination. Where is double O seven when you need him ?

Murdoch is arrogant enough to believe he can be the self appointed representative for the British Public in complaining about the BBC.

The BBC is fantastic. Ok, you may question the quality of some of its output, but, in general, at £145/ year it's value for money. For this, for the majority of the time, you get unbiased and measured news output.

Murdoch wants us to pay for all of his output, including his biased news reporting. This is were the Time's paywall is flawed.

12 RedandYellowandGreennotBlue

What could be argued is that the left wing needs a stronger presence in the media, a mirror to the likes of Adam Boulton.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

They are at liberty to invest their money in commercial ventures that will either be succesful (and build such a presence) or that will fail and they will lose lots of money.

"Right On TV" - Financial backers please form an orderly queue.

"Vince Cable had a choice" No, not really. He must always choose the way that leads to fullfilment of the Tory dream of total privatisation of all publicly owned services. He is caught in a very sticky web of deceit .

#15
'Would that be the same Murdoch who made 3 visits to see Blair in the 9 days before the start of the Iraq war?'
And that made him a cuddly avuncular figure?
The same Murdoch who supported Labour for 12 years?
Yes the same. Your point is?
The same Murdoch who, when Andy Coulson stopped working for him in 2007, was still supporting Labour?
See above!

I'm sure this point has been made over and again but (takes breath!) just because people are critical of one political party it does not mean that they automatically support their opponents. Got me, 555?

To be honest the papers have not been all rose tinted over the ConDems as it is.

Do they have that much influence these days?

Their circulations combined are lower than one good TV programme.

Buying off the BBC with the license settlement was more important for the tories.


(I see car sales are DOWN 22%. Tories inherit a modest recovery, convert it into another down turn. Well done.)

19#

And thats where the plurality crowd always go quiet. Put your money (as opposed to someone elses or the public's) where your mouth is... and suddenly, a deafening silence.

Its that green eyed monster with the chips on his shoulders again!!

Forget about Murdoch and Sky, I caught a sliver of something American called "Fox News" the other day. Absolutely ghastly offering. Who owns that, does anybody know? Reason I ask is that whoever it is, we have to make damn sure they don't get a foothold over here. Shudder to think what'd happen if they did.

This is amazing coming from a BBC man, the bbc who's entire format is pro Labour & left of centre. The BBC is more political and self serving than any organisation in the country.
-------
Now counting the time until someone accuses the BBC of pro-Tory bias(or at the least, pro-government bias, regardless of party). Also counting time until someone includes the phrase 'I bet the BBC won't publish this...' in their answer. Always a fun game,albeit one that never takes up much time (accusations of pro-tory bias on other BBC blogs admissable as evidence of diametrically opposed opinion as to impartiality).

Murdoch, like all people, is capapble of making a valid point on occasion. But he is so arrogant and often blatantly hypocritical and self serving it is hard to sympathize with him even when he or someone speaking for his interests does do so.

----
It's a bit rich the BBC complaining about competition from Sky when they happily purchase highlights of sports events from them. Giving revenue to the competitor who probably outbid you in the first place is hardly good business practice.
--------
Well, if the BBC actually bid for full rights on too many sporting events the complaints start piling up, but they still want to be able to provide for the public who do not have Sky to see something of these events. Not a enviable position.
-------
Murdoch wants us to pay for all of his output, including his biased news reporting. This is were the Time's paywall is flawed.
--
It was interesting seeing some reporting on that (I wasn't seeking it out but saw in passing). BBC opinion - hard to gauge success as of yet, large decrease in viewing figures. The Times (paper headline to story) - paywall a success. Me, I cannot afford it either way.
---
The BBC has a 'neutrality charter' but is it neutral? A corporation that became bloated and puffed up with its own importance and sharing many of the spendthrift ways of Labour might be thought of as instinctively being against more business-like organisations. I doubt many would see Nick's blog as anything other than an attack on Murdoch and a call for the vested interests of the BBC to be defended.
---
Interesting point. By and large I feel the corporation is politially neutral (that is not to say it doesn't slant on occasion), but neutral about competitors? That would be tough to pull off given the instinctive reaction to attacks (and Murdoch is attacking).

Some posters here (of all places!) seem to have a bit of a downer on the BBC. Stop it.

The BBC recruits on the basis of talent and intellect. If that happens to correlate strongly with centre-left views, so what?

The issue isn't whether News Corps is entitled to pursue a right-wing agenda, it's whether Murdoch and his empire have an inappropriate degree of influence over our democratically elected government.

16 Fulbar

"What could be argued is that the left wing needs a stronger presence in the media, a mirror to the likes of Adam Boulton."

What, you dont see enough of Andrew Marr, Polly Toynbee & Kevin McGuire on the BBC already?"

--------

Fulbar

Many was the time before the last election when Labour would say something and Polly Toynbee would turn up on the Andrew Marr show and spout forth the same, almost word perfect.

How many of us have often thought that several "commentators" either ring Central Office for the line or are texted in advance? I'm afraid I have always though dear Polly falls into this camp. Quite an intelligent woman I believe but a little too predictable.

"20. At 12:48pm on 04 Nov 2010, Pamela Read wrote:
"Vince Cable had a choice" No, not really. He must always choose the way that leads to fullfilment of the Tory dream of total privatisation of all publicly owned services. He is caught in a very sticky web of deceit ."

Perhaps that's something that you have dreams about but it's not the policy of the Conservative party.

Sleep safe. Probably best for you to sleep a lot.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

11. Fubar_Saunders

'Lie down with dogs and you get fleas.'



Lie down with Fox and you get fleas, surely.

All this bru-haha is predicated on the assumption that the Mudoch's actually matter. The Sun is T&A titillation for the celebrity-obsessed masses and The Times Online is dying behind its paywall. Meanwhile, Sky News continues to be a broadcasting irrelevance. Murdoch Snr can complain all he likes, but I for one will just chuckle quietly.

"The BBC recruits on the basis of talent and intellect. If that happens to correlate strongly with centre-left views, so what?"

Er, because if it didnt mate, you, Hatty and the Equality Police would be doing a Stockwell Tube job on them. You'd not be able to hear yourself think for all the screeching.

Its only discrimination when someone else does it, remember?

@2 - "Does nobody find it worrying that Mr Cameron's first vistor at No10 upon taking up residence was - ta da - Mr Murdoch."
Sorry to blow your conspiracy theory, Paul. In the same speech mentioned by Nick, Murdoch pointed out that he had seen Cameron for less than 10 minutes, several weeks after the election. So not the first, or even the 101st visitor to No 10.

Interesting to see our right-leaning friends here voicing support for Mr Murdoch.

You do remember that he sided with Labour during the Blair years, don't you? And contributed to Labour gaining power??

Pinning your colours to the Murdoch mast just seems a bit naive to me. He's renowned for jumping between parties, depending on which way the political wind is blowing (though Fox News perhaps exposes his genuine roots).

Just seems like an odd choice of person to defend, no matter what your political persuasion might be.

... and people criticising the value of the Beeb, yet visiting their website daily to air their opinions.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

The left-wing slant provided by the BBC is more than enough to outweigh any slant that might be provided by Sky. Besides which, Sky's a commercial organisation that we don't get forced to pay for, and they don't get £3.5billion of our money every year.

(oh dear, referred for further moderation above...
So much for the Band Aid apology then. Looks like that's totally worthless and the BBC still don't think they did anything wrong.)

23. At 1:23pm on 04 Nov 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"19#

And thats where the plurality crowd always go quiet. Put your money (as opposed to someone elses or the public's) where your mouth is... and suddenly, a deafening silence.

Its that green eyed monster with the chips on his shoulders again!!"

Thank you, I was hoping someone would make that conclusion for me.

The right wing has Murdoch, the centrists have the BBC (cue aurguments from right- and left-wingers!) but no-one on the left wing has the cut-throat ability to create a massive media organisation. Come on Alistair Campbell, you know you want to be the first left-wing media tycoon...

35#

Considering we pay for it, why the hell shouldnt we use it? Therefore.... No.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

37#

Oh and incidentally, if anyone from the left was pre-disposed to create such a monolithic organisation... wouldnt it go completely against the grain of what the left is supposed to stand for? Wouldnt it have to be owned by the state instead?

How could you be a rampant capitalist, setting a left wing news agenda all over the world, having the financial depth to do so and still with any shred of credibility left be able to say you're of the people, for the people and by the people??? Isnt all such property deemed as theft???

#40
re All property is theft
You're confusing anarchism with the left. It's like bit like calling Labour socialist or the Conservatives progressive.

I am a bit puzzled. What exactly would change if Murdoch took full control? After all his offspring already are in the most senior management positions in this company. So Murdoch has full influence over all possible matters etc. So what will change?

The investors in 1990 that save the two satellite companies from going bust get a return on their investment. As Fubar has noted if you do not pay for Murdoch you do not get. it is a free choice unless Nick knows something we do not about the future of the BBD and other broadcasters.

"Considering we pay for it, why the hell shouldnt we use it? Therefore.... No."

^ Fair point.

But bad news for the Times Online, as their subscribers don't seem to feel the same way. Or it is simply less entertaining when preaching to the converted?

And therein lies the value of the Beeb - it's a forum for open debate; even you, Fubar, must recognise and value that at least.

40 - yes, I have to say that China kept coming to mind as I wrote that...

"21. At 1:01pm on 04 Nov 2010, Poprishchin wrote:
#15
'Would that be the same Murdoch who made 3 visits to see Blair in the 9 days before the start of the Iraq war?'
And that made him a cuddly avuncular figure?
The same Murdoch who supported Labour for 12 years?
Yes the same. Your point is?
The same Murdoch who, when Andy Coulson stopped working for him in 2007, was still supporting Labour?
See above!

I'm sure this point has been made over and again but (takes breath!) just because people are critical of one political party it does not mean that they automatically support their opponents. Got me, 555?"

No, lost you completely. At 6 you tried to make a point of Murdoch being the first vistor to number 10. You were wrong about that but you tried to make a point of it. Then you tried to make a point out of an ex Murdoch employee now working for Cameron.

Come to think of it, what was the point? Was there one?

Now you're saying that someone can be critical of one party without supporting the other. Who is the someone? Is it you? What's your criticism? What does it amount to? Murdoch goes to see current PM just as he went to see previous PMs? Not shocking criticism really is it?

And if you're trying to make some sinsiter link between Coulson and Murdcoh, it seems odd for Coulson to leave Murdoch and then go work for the party that Murdoch was against at the time. Again, your criticism doesn't seem to amount to much.

40 - Fubar

There ARE left wing papers. I think it's called 'The Socialist Worker' or some such. I hear it sells nearly a copy a day.

34#

Its not the person, its the principle.

37#

As the mods didnt like my previous retort, I'll simply confine my reply to your wish for a left wing media mogul to two words.

Robert

and

Maxwell.

That ought to do it. Makes Murdoch look like a paragon of virtue by comparison.

Somehow, I'm not sure Bad Al has the... constitution, shall we say, to be able to morph himself into Maxwell v2.0.

41#

Hah, very good.


43#

Yes, I do. But thats for us, the mug punters to indulge in. Not for the provider to steer. He/she simply has to provide the means.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#26 pd65 wrote:
"The BBC recruits on the basis of talent and intellect. If that happens to correlate strongly with centre-left views, so what?"

I can see no evidence for the first sentence (but am open to persuasion).
The second sentence is also a false proposition, dressed up as an if condition.

Simpson believes that the BBC settlement is equivalent to water-boarding. So the BBC elite exists in a world of their own fevered imagination.

50
#

Snore. Same old same old. And off topic. Next....

#43 skol303 wrote:
"And therein lies the value of the Beeb - it's a forum for open debate"

Not correct.

About a year ago I had one of my posts rejected. It quoted a contributor who called David Cameron a [] and a [] and I gave my restrained reply, pointing out that this was a typical left-leaning comment.

When I quoted [] and [] on the forum a second time it was still rejected. I wrote to the BBC several times asking why the original post was passed, but a quotation from it was not. Needless to say I received no reply. However, the demands to pay the BBC license fee cannot, legally, be treated by me in the same cavalier fashion.

AndyC555
'No, lost you completely.'
Quel surprise!

'At 6 you tried to make a point of Murdoch being the first vistor to number 10.'
No I didn't.

'Now you're saying that someone can be critical of one party without supporting the other.'
It's true, I tell you!

'Who is the someone? Is it you?'
Um, yes.

'What's your criticism?'
You attempted to defend Rupert by implying that I was somehow uncritical of him while he was Tony's friend but that he is now 'evil' because he's David's friend. I haven't changed my mind over what I think of Rupert Murdoch.

'And if you're trying to make some sinister link between Coulson and Murdoch...'
It's all rather incestuous and unhealthy isn't it? David, Andy and Rupert, all in it together! And don't forget the link between Andy and the, still unresolved, issue of his editorship of the News of the World during their phone tapping episode. David Cameron's judgement is starting to look increasingly shaky.

JH66 @ 51

Just wanted to see if you were there.

JH66 @ 53 wrote:
About a year ago I had one of my posts rejected.

>>

You can't read too much into individual rejections. Only yesterday I had a post rejected (for being off topic) which mentioned the ex-con Hirst and criticized the BBC interviewer. But several other posts on the same thread which were more anti-Hirst were passed. I could construct a whole conspiracy theory around this, if I were of a mind to. But of course, I'm not.

You should pay your license fee by direct debit, it's much easier.

At #53:

Well, that clearly seems unfair; I can't argue with that.

But is this really a reflection of some "communist conspiracy" within the Beeb, or simply a case of poor moderation in that instance?

Though I understand why you would feel aggrieved at this, as would I.

The point I'm trying to make is this: many of us here clearly have strongly opposing political views - and it would be a far less interesting place without them. But does anyone really believe that we would be better off without the BBC? I mean, what's the alternative? Posting on the Sky News forums, or at Times/Guardian online?

I personally don't buy into this perception of the Beeb's political bias (but then my politics lie left of centre). Regardless: the Beeb at least offers the perception of a 'middle ground', which itself attracts healthy debate from both sides.

I personally much prefer this to simply posting in agreement at the Guardian, or for yourself to do the same at the Times (generalising here, of course).

That's where the real value of the Beeb lies, in my opinion. And long may it continue.

It would be wonderful if the Murdoch family's excessive influence over political opinion in the UK were about to be curtailed.

The coalition is in an unusually strong position vis a vis the Murdochs at the moment, because having fairly recently pulled the plug on New Labour, they have no where to go, if they fall out with the coalition.

The two political parties might even agree that an enquiry into the news gathering techniques used by the Murdoch press, followed by legislation designed to clip its wings, would be in their mutual interest.

No49 Fubar,
Do you think that 'Red Vince', Lib Dem Minister and former Labour Party special advisor is making a fool of the Tories and especially the novices in Downing Street? The Murdoch puppet masters will be less than pleased.

57 The Murdochs and every other news magnates influence could easily be curtailed over the government if, they, our MP's and our political system did not have so much to hide and had some integrity and backbone.

Unfortunately, our executive and upper and lower houses are packed full of professional troughers and pocket lining apparatchiks who are only in it for their own self aggrandisement whilst pandering to vested interests.

Not that the rest of the world is any different, mind you, but its a simple task to get them off your back and stop them driving the agenda.

Act with honesty and integrity in the true interests of public service, ferchrissakes.

Simples.

#55 pd65 wrote:
"You can't read too much into individual rejections."

Yes, correct, and good reply.

But it reminds me of Harman's 'ginger rodent' speech. "The left" is allowed to make all sorts of personal comments (and the anti-Cameron jibe passed by the BBC was much, much worse than Harman's). If Labour and its media allies don't like Danny Alexander's policies then stick to that line of attack.

I have no particular problem with my original post being rejected (due to the embedded quotation). But I did think it unfair that the BBC refused to reply to my complaint.

"The Murdochs and every other news magnates influence could easily be curtailed over the government if, they, our MP's and our political system did not have so much to hide and had some integrity and backbone."

^ In this instance, Fubar, I agree with you entirely! Well said.

No46 Andy Pandy,
More in-depth analysis from the'Kindergarten Kid'

#33 - if you want to have a go at me, get your facts straight: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11650567 (see paragraphs 11 & 12).

I don't see conspiracies anywhere, I subscribe to the "cock-up" theory of history, and pure human venality. The issue, as it would appear that you missed the point I was making, is not about Mr Cameron per se, but whether any newly formed government should feel itself beholden to anybody other than the electorate. In my opinion, Mr Blair sold his soul to News Corp, and look where it got him.

The overarching consideration in any democracy should be whether ANY news oragnisation should be allowed to weald a monopolistic type of control over the news agenda. Those who thrash the BBC as an example of such a monopoly seem to forget all the checks and balances that are brought to bear on it - not least of which are those on the various BBC blogs who denounce them daily. Further, why do I need to remind you, or any other conspiracy concerned reader, that it was the BBC who raised the alarm over that "dossier" - nobody else.

Plurality of news outlets and freedom of speech, without let or hindrance from vested interests, is the best protection for our democracy. If you would prefer to curtail that plurality, it speaks to intolerance of those who do not share your opinion, and therein lies the road to totalitarianism and ultimately ruin.

Perhaps the best case for an element of public sector broadcasting is contained within the quotation 'Freedom of the press in Britain means freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers don't object to'
The BBC appears, from virtually every survey, to be very popular with the public.

"About a year ago I had one of my posts rejected." - 66 @ 53

Yes I remember that, John. Couldn't understand it then - can't understand it now.

Fubar - reply to earlier question, Robert Skidelsky.

"our executive and upper and lower houses are packed full of professional troughers and pocket lining apparatchiks" - fubar @ 59

Most successful UK politicians would make more lucre in other fields. I'd say they go into politics for power, fame* and (best cases) to make a difference. Money doesn't feature that much.

* George Osborne the prime example of this one in recent times.

62 - "At 4:42pm on 04 Nov 2010, IPGABP1 wrote:
No46 Andy Pandy,
More in-depth analysis from the'Kindergarten Kid'"

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

Still stuck on your two insults. Surely you can do better than that? Apparently not. For some reason known only to you it's your stock response to my postings. odd, though, talking about Kindergarten when the best you can do is change my blogging name. Hardly adult wit is it? I guess that's why there were so many posts with that before you dreamed up the Kindegarten thing. Looking forward to your third jibe in, what, about 3 months time?

And if you ARE going to quote (at 64), shouldn't you at least ascribe the quote? Just lazy not to. It was Hannen Swaffer.

54 - I stand corrected over 6. You weren't making a point but were reinforcing an earlier post.

Still can't see what your actual criticisms of Murdoch are. He visits number 10 a lot. One of his ex-employees works for Cameron, probably a number of his ex-employees work for various political parties.

You could make those points of any owner of a national newspaper and, for that matter the DG of the BBC

"All property is theft" - pop @ 41

Only if it's stolen. What they call "swag". Normally obvious what constitutes this but there are grey areas sometimes - things like tax dodging and City bonuses.

Of course, as always, the editors will toe the line, in one form or another.

48 "Robert Maxwell"

I remember him. Strong Labour supporter if I recall correctly. Ex-Labour MP indeed.

Non-Dom, you know. Claimed Israeli Domicile. Must have saved him a fortune in income tax whilst alive and IHT otherwise due on his estate on his death. I wonder if his long-term support had anything to do with Labour never looking at changing non-Dom rules? Guess we'll never know.

"The BBC has a 'neutrality charter' but is it neutral?" - andy @ 17

Pretty much. Certainly it's free of both extreme left and right wing prejudice. In fact, it's quite a good litmus test for political extremism in that those who see significant bias in the BBC tend to be the extremists of either side. It makes sense that these wilder characters do see it this way when you think about it.

Do you think the BBC has significant bias, Andy?

70 - "Normally obvious what constitutes this but there are grey areas sometimes - things like tax dodging and City bonuses."

Don't know too much about city bonuses but up to speed on grey areas of tax dodging. Unoccupied residencies spring to mind. Depending on what the Council are told, they can be charged full council tax, 25% off or sometimes nothing. So easy to give the wrong information and be charged to little. What is 'unoccupied' anyway? Grey area indeed. Same with selling such a residence. Not truthfully a PPR but what would someone claim as their hand hovered over the tax return.....grey indeed.

73 - "Do you think the BBC has significant bias, Andy?"

Well, Mark Thompson said ""In the BBC I joined 30 years ago there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people's personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We're like that, too."

And Andrew Marr was quoted as saying "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"

Somewhat disingenuous to try and seperate 'cultural liberal' from party poitical. The values of cultural liberalism are more associated with the left.

Significant bias? Apparently there was, probably now just an in-built lean to the left. It's non-commerical and state-funded. More likely to attract those with non-commerical leanings than those imbued with the capitalist spirit.

What do you think, Saga?

Re post 24, Saga mix said -

'Forget about Murdoch and Sky, I caught a sliver of something American called "Fox News" the other day. Absolutely ghastly offering. Who owns that, does anybody know? Reason I ask is that whoever it is, we have to make damn sure they don't get a foothold over here. Shudder to think what'd happen if they did.'

I think you probably already know that Fox news is a subsidiary of Newscorp owned by Mr Murdoch. I agree with you it is ghastly but perhaps does explain the rise of the Tea Party

What do I think? Well Andy, I think that at 74 you're coming close to recommending something unsavoury. Will pretend I didn't see it.

At 75, by contrast, you're being very astute indeed ...

"The values of cultural liberalism are more associated with the left."

... and also very kind. I too consider the left to be more cultured and liberal. One of our "once in a blue" points of agreement - I raise my mug of TEA (just the drink, don't worry, no acronyms or references to American historical events) and I go, "cheers, Andy."

But I was more asking you about political bias. Whether you, for example, saw the BBC as left wing politically. Seems, from what you say, that you do.

Which is interesting since if I'm correct at 73 - and why wouldn't I be? - it more or less proves that you're a right wing extremist.

#7PURPS

"This is amazing coming from a BBC man, the bbc who's entire format is pro Labour & left of centre. The BBC is more political and self serving than any organisation in the country."

16Fubar_Saunders

"What, you dont see enough of Andrew Marr, Polly Toynbee & Kevin McGuire on the BBC already?"


I just want to know how you manage to suggest the bbc is biased towards labour PURPS and mention names of guilty parties Fubar_Saunders?

When I dare to suggest either I get moderated and informed it's off topic (3 times yesterday).

I now feel unable to make any comment on this blog as undoubtedly remarks are made to the originator of the blog (I won't mention NC's name)

one step @ 76

I confess that I did know. First time I saw it, I actually thought it was a spoof of right wing extremist sentiment, so rabid was it. Second time I realised it was for real. Third time ... well there wasn't a third time.

This Tea Party (stands for "taxed enough already" apparently) is a bad business - the sort of nasty virus that can really spread when times are hard. Hope they develop a suitable vaccine.

The BBC impartial? No, not in the least, and that's with a legal obligation to be so unlike their commercial counterparts.

Fox do produce the Simpsons !

67. sagamix:
"Most successful UK politicians would make more lucre in other fields. I'd say they go into politics for power, fame* and (best cases) to make a difference. Money doesn't feature that much."

The duffers are the ones that benefit most, particularly if they make junior or senior ministerial positions. I can think of several from the last cabinet who were no great shakes in the private/public sector prior to becoming MPs but who are now doing very nicely post government. And some certainly 'made a difference' during their stay. Judging by their activity in the property market and offers to sell their influence for cash, I'd also say money did matter for more than a few.

After the personal disaster of student fees Vince needed an open goal and this was surely it for him. Now if the Competition mob decide its OK then its not his fault.

Personally I hope that if there is anything to put a blocker on the influence of the corporation that includes Fox News and News of the World as part of its output then that would be just great.

Channel 4 is showing all the Simpsons repeats anyway.

#73 - "Do you think the BBC has significant bias, Andy?"

I don't know about other regions but BBC Scotland is shockingly biased in favour of the labour party, so much so that the trustees point blank refuse to even investigate allegations of bias against it.

Nick - Schoolboy error to choose a topic (however worthy) that gives all the dull boring BBC Bias whiners a chance to be vaguely on-topic.

Funny, but quite a few keep coming back - maybe they think if they keep moaning then they'll have the BBFox news they crave.

This is a great blog but I do wish that the Dimblebys would put one up. Many of us in Scotland will be watching with great interest tonight, after last weeks Question Time from Glasgow. There is a growing body of opinion that there is a very identifiable agenda now deployed in the MSM in Scotland.

Lots to read on it: tinyurl.com/3xqd7vl

Before the last election the BBC was agog with thoughts of a "coalition government" They could not wait.

Now every department of the BBC is anti coalition.

We must wonder if this is genuine disappointment at the current government's performance or have we got the "wrong" coalition? Suggest the BBC's reporting would be VERY different if we had a Lib-Lab coalition.

Previous "respect" for Ministers when labour was in power no longer exists. Wonder why in an institutional "Leftist" BBC staff and management team.

As Wapping-gate is showing, private media magnates are just as deserving of suspicion as the state, if not more so, being unelected. Scrutiny and regulation of their business should be as rigorous as possible, especially now, in an age when the prevailing political dogma is one reinforced and endorsed by every advertisement on every street corner, and during every commercial break. And is therefore stronger than anything mere democracy can throw against it.
Who needs overt political propaganda when the dogma sells itself on every shelf?

Having lived in the USA, and watched distortion of news done large, to the point where it is quite literally fantasy, I shudder at the thought that Sky news could get turned into the rabid rightwingfest that is FOX news.

But the BBC isn't doing well itself. I see people in England complaining that the BBC is left wing, but that is nothing compared to what is going on in Scotland.

BBC Scotland is so extremely biased in favour of Labour, it beggars belief. The coverage of political news in Scotland by the BBC is nothing short of disgraceful. The blatant bias shown by the BBC in Scotland is akin to that shown by FOX in the USA, it is an affront to democracy.

Many, many complaints have been made and they are ignored. This of course goes completely unreported in England. People down south think the BBC is biased, but they have NO IDEA how politically biased the BBC are in Scotland.

As an example; there are full parliamentary elections in Scotland in a few months, so you would expect the BBC to cover all the party conferences equally. No they don't. Their coverage was skewed beyond belief.

Labour (the second largest party in Scotland) had 142 hours of coverage of their party conference.

SNP (the largest party in Scotland AND the current government) received just two.

That's right, two hours coverage in Scotland for the party currently in Government, yet Labour had 142 hours coverage shown in Scotland.

The BBC in Scotland are like pravda in communist USSR. They are biased, biased, biased.

Many people in Scotland are sick and fed up of the bias in favour of Labour by the BBC in Scotland. It isn't even subtle anymore. It's like BBC Scotland do not even care that they are a public broadcaster.

So, Murdoch or BBC??? In my book, there is no difference. None at all.

Did anyone see have i got news for you tonight?
the two special guest were...
Nick robinson
and.............WAIT FOR IT......

james blunt


:-)

Blame @ 82

They're often able to use their contacts to make money after leaving politics, this is true. Even before they've left politics half the time. The path from Westminster to the City, for example, is particularly well trodden. I nevertheless don't go along with the view that money is a major driver for going into politics in this country. The qualities which make a successful politician - physical and mental toughness, driving personal ambition, ability to manipulate and dissemble, comfort in the spotlight, devious sharpness, skin of an elephant - these will take you a very long way in many other fields which pay an awful lot better.

It makes good business sense to back the political horses most likely to win, so in 1997 Rupert Murdoch decided to back Tony Blair/New Labour and accordingly switched his titles (The Times and The Sun).

More recently, he has apparently backed Cameron, which was pretty obvious in the Current Bun but maybe was a bit more subtle in The Times, as appropriate to the readership.

That support gives the proprietor some leverage, probably not as much leverage as the general public think, but nevertheless, the Murdochs could make things rather unpleasant for Dave and Co, if they think they are being double-crossed vis-a-vis their media businesses.

Another point, journalists who make their living outside of the cosseted world of the BBC have much cause the be grateful to the Murdochs as they pioneer the Internet payment gateway for the The Times, as quality journalism should, generally speaking; be a paid-for product.

Comments re the Beeb showing pro-Labour bias in Scotland: is it actually that, or is it more an anti-SNP slant which you detect? Or does this boil down to the same thing?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#93 - "Or does this boil down to the same thing?"

It certainly boils down to the fact that BBC Scotland is biased, a breach of their charter and unacceptable whilst they take a licence fee. To cry foul about Murdoch is just pot, kettle, black.

On the ball as ever, Nick.

But, when push comes to shove, won't Murdoch try to get a pure Tory government elected next time - no matter how ffeble he thinks Cameron is?

26. At 1:34pm on 04 Nov 2010, pdavies65 wrote:
Some posters here (of all places!) seem to have a bit of a downer on the BBC. Stop it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, here!


The BBC recruits on the basis of talent and intellect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I can think of a few who fall down on one or both of those heads. And one or two 'stars' who for peculiar reasons get demoted, despite talent and intellect.

In addition, while I admire Robert Peston's work rate, he certainly wasn't hired for his broadcasting ability. It was for his gold-plated contact book and the ability to ferret out business news.

93. sagamix
"Comments re the Beeb showing pro-Labour bias in Scotland: is it actually that, or is it more an anti-SNP slant which you detect? Or does this boil down to the same thing?"

The latter, I think. It's not that BBC Scotland (not necessarily the same as the BBC) is primarily British, and uses their platform to press that. If Scotland voted more for Tory or LD they would support the dominant Unionist Party. As it is they tend to put Labour in a favourable light.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.