Options
Media Moguls/ The Murdochs/ News International/ BSkyB: Why The BBC Is So Important...
![miles19740](https://forums.digitalspy.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
Forum Member
✭✭
Media Moguls / monopolies leads to greed / corruption (with MPs / businessmen / the police in bed with each other) and poor services...which is bad for the UK, bad for our democracy and bad for it's population. Business puts profit first and quality of service / it's customers second which is bad for all concerned.
The alleged activities of the Murdochs and their companies makes me realise how important the BBC is...as well as the rest of our public services. The BBC, funded by the licence fee, ensures both political and commercial independence...which in light of the recent Murdoch business, can only be a good thing. The need for the BBC has never been stronger, in my view.
Keeping our public services public (reducing News International's influence in the UK in the process) is the only way to go...in my view.
The alleged activities of the Murdochs and their companies makes me realise how important the BBC is...as well as the rest of our public services. The BBC, funded by the licence fee, ensures both political and commercial independence...which in light of the recent Murdoch business, can only be a good thing. The need for the BBC has never been stronger, in my view.
Keeping our public services public (reducing News International's influence in the UK in the process) is the only way to go...in my view.
0
Comments
I would be amazed if neither knew, most people in the media have known about hacking for years.
Why this sudden outburst? It's been coming for a while now. Other new organisations have had things lined up against them for a long while now, but they couldn't reveal them publicly until the Murdoch's were not bulletproof anymore.
The BBC ensures left of centre political views are represented. The tv & radio version of the Guardian.
I guess you haven't watched much BBC News over the last several months. The BBC has been censoring proper coverage of the privatisation of the NHS and welfare reforms. And pretty much anything else that whows the Tories up for what they are.
The BBC are cowed and scared of going against the ConDems.
They're not actually allowed to do this. Don't confuse censoring with what it actually is, impartiality.
For years Murdoch has been very adamant he is a "hands on" manager. He phones all his editors every day to discuss what is going to be in the next days paper and so on.
Do you really think anyone in his company can write out a cheque for a high six figure sum to settle a lawsuit without him knowing? That isn't £5 from petty cash to buy some teabags.
Now do you think he would let such a payment happen without asking what it was for? Why are they settling? What case has the person got? What evidence?
There is no way that Rupert did not know.
As for the editors, do you really think any editor would let any journalist say "I have this information. Lets publish it" without asking where that evidence came from? How reliable it is?
And when they discussed these stories every day with Rupert that he didn't think to ask where the information came from?
It simply is not plausible that he did not know.
Quite a few Newspapers do that though, (and not only the NOTW), and then months down the line they have to backtrack
I actually think the BBC is very balanced...and rightly so. It is only achieved because of the way it is funded...independent of government.
It is in the BBC's own interests to remain neutral, impartial and balanced. By and large, I think it does an excellent job.
What we now need is the balance seen with the BBC spread to print media to...because at the moment, it leans far too much to the right, in my view.
It's one thing having impartial broadcast news (which I support wholeheartedly) but if we neuter the press of their opinions then we really are going into Pravda territory.
It's an absolutely horrific thought.
If I'm being honest I doubt Rupert Murdoch is as hands on as he says, and I don't really think he gave a shit. If you could be on set at the next X-Men movie would you really be at News Intl.?
In a company with $30 BILLION turnover ($90m every day!), I'd be amazed if executives couldn't write six figure cheques.
I disagree 100%
Do what? Have editors that just do not bother asking or care where information came from? That would always be an editors decision. He would ask what the source was and then decide whether to publish. They may very well decide to publish on a flimsy source, but that would be the editors decision, often after consulting their lawyer.
Every large company has very strict controls on payments. Huge sums are paid out for buying stock, wages, rent etc as a matter of routine, but they have very tight control on who it is paid to, and that they reconcile exactly with stock, wages, rent etc. That is what purchase ledger does. A cheque to someone outside the company to settle a lawsuit would have been cleared at the highest level and signed by a director.
Think about it. If that could happen then any exec could just say "Oh yeah, this guy was suing us so I paid him £100k" and pocket the cash.
Even if we assume that he knew nothing specific Rupert has to take the blame. He has been the one who crafted the Corporate culture and it's this corporate culture and his leadership that has allowed this cancer to grow.
Murdoch has had a pretty big hand in that being the case though. He has dumbed most of his media outlets down to appeal to the lowest level rather than try and drag his customers up a level by educating and informing them.
As a business it's pretty smart as he is tapping into the human nature for the need of Gossip based news and it's smart from a political pov as it increases readers/viewers and gives him a platform to impose his views on the BUT it is an abuse of the media.
And because his empires dumbing down but appealing to the masses most of the rest have had to dumb down somewhat to stay competativive
Those who have worked at Fox News will tell you a different story. Also didn't Piers Morgan also confirm the weekly phone calls to go over the planned stories?
He is a guy who is more concerned with having the power and infulence to affect politics in his favour and uses the news operations as his main tool to active this. I would be surprised if he has ever actually been on a film set and certainly he won't care one bitbaboutbthe next X-Men movie
I do not thinks Vince cable took Murdochs shilling, this is why I respect him.
Yes Vince Cable has gone to the top of my best MP's list ,just shows though if you say anything about the Murdoch's or SKY you will be punished by other MP's
I think Cable is a lot more principled than many politicians but he could not have stayed in office once he had made those remarks. What is disgraceful is that they replaced him with a man who apparently has something on his web site saying something like "every good Conservative should be a cheerleader for Sky". So they went from a man who "was at war with Murdoch" to one who was a cheerleader for Sky. And call me old fashioned but I thought MP's were supposed to be cheerleaders for their constituents. Not big corporations whose owners use their media might to get what they want.
Cable did stay in office following his remarks
Apologies he was stripped of his role in making decisions on the Sky bid. What I said still stands though. He could not have continued to have any role in it when he had made such indiscreet remarks showing a bias to one side of the argument. By giving Hunt the job though it was out of the frying pan into the fire.