Options
Did Cameron's Government cut BBC on Murdoch request?
Pizzatheaction
Posts: 20,157 Forum Member
✭✭✭
The long term licence fee freeze and the transfer of additional funding responsiblities to the BBC (World Service, S4C) led to an effective cut of 15-20% of the BBC's budget.
Regardless of whether you, the reader, regards this as a good thing, bad thing, or couldn't care less, is David Cameron on record (not in the Houses of Parliament) as confirming the cuts were not made as a result of any Murdoch request/demand?
Has anyone asked him, and received a straight yes or no answer, rather than the unrelated waffle I received when I asked about the freeze?
Please don't let this thread degenerate into BBC-bashing/Murdoch-bashing/Cameron-bashing. There are already various threads dedicated to these activities!
Regardless of whether you, the reader, regards this as a good thing, bad thing, or couldn't care less, is David Cameron on record (not in the Houses of Parliament) as confirming the cuts were not made as a result of any Murdoch request/demand?
Has anyone asked him, and received a straight yes or no answer, rather than the unrelated waffle I received when I asked about the freeze?
Please don't let this thread degenerate into BBC-bashing/Murdoch-bashing/Cameron-bashing. There are already various threads dedicated to these activities!
0
Comments
Democracy in action eh!?
^ Fixed it for you.
Yes but Cameron is on record making statements about 'waste' in the BBC before the visit, Murdoch might have just popped in to collect something he left behind whilst visiting the previous occupant.
Nonsense. Any official meeting has to be minuted-they just don't always have to make the minutes publically available if it's deemed not to be in the national interest to do so.
I believe that is the case...yes. In return for Murdoch's support.
I can't believe how close we came to making Murdoch even more powerful. More seriously, our politics has been dominated by this man for years.
But I think the reality is that Cameron would have made this cut to the LF anyway.
2 reasons:
1) The cut is broadly in line with cuts to the rest of the public sector (except NHS, schools and overseas aid which have been treated as "special")
2) The BBC is not popular with many Conservatives who see it as being massively dominant in terms of supply of News (which was confirmed by OFCOM in its recent investigation of the News Corp / Sky takeover). So they would like it cut back as much as they can get away with without going so far as to look vindictive.
It is my understanding private meetings do not have to be minuted. Why do you think Murdoch crept into the Downing Street flat via the back door?
The BBC needs protecting. It is the only organisation which provides a balance of voices and points of view.
I know the tories hate the public sector, but they tamper with the BBC at their peril.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23662653-tories-would-freeze-licence-fee.do
That's 14 months before they form the coalition government.
I guess you didn't hear MPs from all parties praising Sky News for its excellent record with impartial news for over 25 years?
Nevertheless, I agree the BBC needs to be protected. I have being saying this on these forums for a long time, as someone who always had the BBC's protection at heart, that unfortunately with a massive currently outdated scope it will simply dig its own grave. Right now it needs to decide carefully what kind of scope a PSB should function as. I would also say that its current dominance in News is very unhealthy in the broadcasting landscape.
Reviewing carefully how much funds it needs to function with a new clear scope by using realistic weighted income streams whether it be publicly funded, charity donations or using its commerical arm.
I certainly see the BBC having a great future in British broadcasting as broadcasting parliament and debate proceedings (sort of a similar function that C-SPAN has in the United States) and certain "core" PSB current affairs programming.
A private meeting between individuals is one thing, an official meeting, wheether closed to the public or no, is another. Nothing could be formally agreed on at the former type of meeting, the latter would have to be minuted.
So isnt that the point? Cameron and Murdoch meet for friendly chats, either in Downing Street or some soiree somewhere. Its not an 'official' meeting and so isnt minuted but youre telling me they dont discuss these kind of things off the record? Why else is he there? To swap recipes?
That's why he goes in the back door so it isn't an official meeting.
I do believe, however, that informal understandings have been in place between Murdoch and numerous Prime Ministers over the years.
Anyone remember this one.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23577573-cameron-met-murdoch-on-private-yacht.do
So what's new, did Tone pay for his flights to Aus ?
I like this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6033333.stm
especially the quote
In the interview, Mr Murdoch says he has spent more time with Mr Blair and the chancellor than he ever did with ex-Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
She didn't go out of her way to develop a personal relationship with me," he said.
"But Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, whenever I'm in town they say, 'Can't you come over for a cup of tea?'
Its that the same Gordon who was so ravaging yesterday.
May be the OP could answer this question "Did News Corps business retract or expand under Brown & Blair ?
Any such informal agreement,let alone one made on the premises at 10 Downing Street, would be a violation of the terms under which the PM was elected. He'd have to be a complete fool to take such a risk.
Try living in the real world. It's a private conversation where nobody else will ever get evidence of what is discussed.
Dr. Peter Silberman
I never said what they discussed because I don't know but that is a large part of the problem. When political leaders make a priority of having secret meetings with a powerful media baron and then put into practice policies that the media baron approves of and removes policies the media baron does not approve of then we have to be suspicious.
We now have the opportunity of stopping such meetings and it's about time.