I like Polly and she was clearly in her element on QT last night.
I know much of what she says is true but it would be good to hear something new from her rather than recycled information that other journalists originally reported.
But her line about Sky News one day morphing into Fox should have cobwebs on it by now, I honestly must have heard her say it 100 times. She has so much factual ammunition she dosen't need to trawl a hypothetical scenario out so often.
I remember Toynbee when she worked at the BBC for a while.She couldn't grasp the concept that television was about pictures so didn't fit very well with the rambling, left-wing columns she used to write for The Guardian. Thankfully the BBC rumbled her.
On the contrary, the BBC use her at every opportunity - Dateline London, Question Time etc - as a mouthpiece for their own left wing views.
Sky's subscription income is approx £5b. 10% of that is £500m.
BSkyB pay £400m in UK Corporation tax alone!!!
So that means they're paying all their staff, buying the majority of their content (including billions in sports rights), renting satellite space etc. etc. all for £100m per year.
God knows why the BBC needs its £3.5bn if Sky can do so much with so little.
To be honest Derek, and I appreciate you aren't paid for your comments, but I'm finding your comments far more incorrect and misleading than those of PT.
By the way: FYI:
Our total revenue from continuing operations in fiscal 2011 was
£6,597 million (2010: £5,709 million), as set out in the table below.
For the year to 30 June
2011 £m, 2010 £m
Retail subscription 5,455, 4,761
Wholesale subscription 323, 238
Advertising 458, 340
Installation, hardware and service 112, 174
Other 249, 196
Revenue 6,597, 5,709
Source: Sky Annual Report 2011
Inparticular see page 112 of that document to see how much they really pay in tax. My reading is (if someone can correct me please do so, it's not that clear to a non-financial person such as myself) if they paid standard corporation tax that would be 489m for 2011. They actually paid 38m.
On the contrary, the BBC use her at every opportunity - Dateline London, Question Time etc - as a mouthpiece for their own left wing views.
And there we have the classic 'biased' post.
So Dateline London, Question Time should only have what..right wing views on it? But that would be biased wouldn't it? How about only left wing views...nope...that would also be biased. How about only centre field views...nope again that would be biased.
Or is it a case that some see biased because their own views or political leanings should be THE ONLY views being expressed, therefore if a counter view or argument is made it is biased broadcasting.
Do the BBC use her at every opportunity? Please continue with the list beyond DL and QT because with all the Murdoch Scandal of the last year or so I assume she is never off Newsnight and the likes.
How often is she on then? daily, weekly or as it seems to me, occasionally?
Over several shows I'd say weekly isn't an unreasonable estimate but it's just that, an estimate.
But she will be balanced out by someone with differing views or the interviewers will certainly put the other side of things so I don't see the problem.
On the contrary, the BBC use her at every opportunity - Dateline London, Question Time etc - as a mouthpiece for their own left wing views.
LOL! And of course that well known 'left-wing sympathiser' Nigel Farage was on QT last night too...as he also regularly is, perhaps acting as a mouthpiece for the Beeb too...
Well some of that £1 per person must go to all the other channels within the sub package, quite a few which are no Sky, some must go to Astra, some must go to paying wages..... that 10p goes an awful long way!
But it's not just 10p.
10m subscribers paying say £20 a month = £20,000,000
Or if I've done my sums right a mere £240m a year?
To be honest Derek, and I appreciate you aren't paid for your comments, but I'm finding your comments far more incorrect and misleading than those of PT.
By the way: FYI:
Source: Sky Annual Report 2011
Retail subscription £5.455m . So 10% is £545m.
As the only money NewsCorp receive from BSkyB is dividends like all the other shareholders, it would appear that Polly has got it around the wrong way and 10% goes to News Corp and Hollywood.
BSkyB pay about 50% of their profits in dividends, so on £1bn they would pay out £500m of which NewsCorp would get 39.1% (£195m) The other £350m going on Hollywood studio deals.
As the only money NewsCorp receive from BSkyB is dividends like all the other shareholders, it would appear that Polly has got it around the wrong way and 10% goes to News Corp and Hollywood.
BSkyB pay about 50% of their profits in dividends, so on £1bn they would pay out £500m of which NewsCorp would get 39.1% (£195m) The other £350m going on Hollywood studio deals.
Why do they only pay for Hollywood deals out of their profits, what about all their other rights (Premier League being by far the most expensive?). Wouldn't they pay for rights out of their revenues, with profits (income) being over and above what the business costs to run?
They didn't pay 50% of their profits in dividends last year (does any company?), they paid a total of £253 millions.
...Sky subscribers watch more pay content than they do BBC...
Are you sure? If just under half the country has Sky (currently)...and if all Sky subscribers spent more time watching Sky than any other network, why isn't it reflected in the ratings and audience shares?
The figures suggest to me that Polly is bang on the money...more people spend more time with the BBC than any other broadcaster. Why...because it is the best broadcaster in the world...and carries no ads! Evidence...check out the Barb website!
...There are many, many series that are not bought by Sky that are 'better' than the ones Sky have bought...
Reality check...if Murdoch could buy up everything around the world, he would. It is naive to think otherwise. All Murdoch is interested in is his business and the wonga he can make...no-one and nothing else.
Polly and anyone else doing a bit of Sky bashing is fine by me. The Murdoch influence and dominance seen currently in the UK needs and must be rolled back...in my view.
Sky's dominance over the BBC is already looming: now past its investment phase, Sky's income is multiplying fast at £5.5bn a year, against the BBC's static £3.5bn.
Sky's growing billions can buy everything, not only sports and movies, but every best series:
the BBC trains and develops talent, predatory Sky will snatch it.
Nor is Sky that good for the Treasury: for every £1 in Sky subscriptions, 90p flees the country, straight to News Corp and Hollywood in the US.
The BBC accounts for much of Britain's success in the creative industries, a prime example of national investment yielding rich returns.
Every £1 of the licence fee puts £2 into the economy, in talent trained and nurtured, in independent companies commissioned, its own output rolling through the economy.
Exports and sales deliver 20% of the BBC's income: 70m US homes buy BBC channels.
But Sky is a net loss to the UK: for every £1 in Sky subscriptions, only 90p stays in the UK, the rest going to the parent company and Hollywood studios.
Sky is essentially parasitic, not productive, for Britain.
I suggest that the 90p is a simple error that, of course, should have been picked up by the editorial process.
Perhaps derek500 might wish to take this up with PT directly rather than providing yet another distraction from the reality that is the current News Corp scandal!
I like Polly and she was clearly in her element on QT last night.
I know much of what she says is true but it would be good to hear something new from her rather than recycled information that other journalists originally reported.
But her line about Sky News one day morphing into Fox should have cobwebs on it by now, I honestly must have heard her say it 100 times. She has so much factual ammunition she dosen't need to trawl a hypothetical scenario out so often.
...and that was a clear and present danger...which is still hanging around now. I would oppose it big time.
How is it that a non-UK citizen is allowed so much power and influence in our country? Murdoch's operations are anti-democratic...in my view.
...and that was a clear and present danger...which is still hanging around now. I would oppose it big time.
How is it that a non-UK citizen is allowed so much power and influence in our country? Murdoch's operations are anti-democratic...in my view.
It was a danger (if they managed to get broadcasting rules changed).
I think it's clear News Corp are never going to be able to own Sky now so I don't see the point of a hypothetical being trawled out, not when there are so many other devastating facts out there.
But I assume you have read the BBC Director General's comments on this subject?
So Dateline London, Question Time should only have what..right wing views on it? But that would be biased wouldn't it? How about only left wing views...nope...that would also be biased. How about only centre field views...nope again that would be biased.
Or is it a case that some see biased because their own views or political leanings should be THE ONLY views being expressed, therefore if a counter view or argument is made it is biased broadcasting.
Do the BBC use her at every opportunity? Please continue with the list beyond DL and QT because with all the Murdoch Scandal of the last year or so I assume she is never off Newsnight and the likes.
Brilliant post.
I watch a lot of BBC programming, because in my view, it can't be beaten. I also want to see a broad and balanced mix of views expressed, which I get on the BBC.
Anyone remember Nick Griffen on Question Time? How about...Nigel Farrage? ...Douglas Carswell? ...Simon Schama? ...Simon Sharkey? Are they all lefties? Of course not. Do I agree with their views? Definately not. Should they appear on Question Time and the like? Yes, absolutely.
Someone remind me, which TV show do we see Michael Portillo appear on every week?
I am tired and bored of some on here screaming 'BBC bias' when they hear or see views expressed which they disagree with. We live in a democracy. Part of the BBC's role is to express views within our democracy, which in my view, it does brilliantly.
Would we have balance if the BBC was the equivalent of Fox News?
The competition commission has also had to delay it's findings whilst it takes into account the effect companies like Netflix and LoveFilm have on the movies market.
That would be more in the future which has nothing to do with the context in which I quoted them. It's beside the point anyway. OFCOM have told them not to delay as they don't think Netflix and Lovefilm changes things much.
It was a danger (if they managed to get broadcasting rules changed).
I think it's clear News Corp are never going to be able to own Sky now so I don't see the point of a hypothetical being trawled out, not when there are so many other devastating facts out there.
But I assume you have read the BBC Director General's comments on this subject?
That would be more in the future which has nothing to do with the context in which I quoted them. It's beside the point anyway. OFCOM have told them not to delay as they don't think Netflix and Lovefilm changes things much.
I wasn't trying to take your post out of context, but merely pointing out that the Pay TV movies market is not as monopolised as some would think. I don't think Netflix or LoveFilm is a future issue as they are both fairly well established in the UK as we speak, hence the CC delaying their findings to take on board the impact these companes have on Movies rights in the UK. What OFCOM thinks on the matter is irrelevant as it's the Competition Commission who decides what's competitive and anti-competitive. The CC may take on board OFCOM's opinion, but it's hardly the deciding factor in the final decision
I wasn't trying to take your post out of context, but merely pointing out that the Pay TV movies market is not as monopolised as some would think. I don't think Netflix or LoveFilm is a future issue as they are both fairly well established in the UK as we speak, hence the CC delaying their findings to take on board the impact these companes have on Movies rights in the UK. What OFCOM thinks on the matter is irrelevant as it's the Competition Commission who decides what's competitive and anti-competitive. The CC may take on board OFCOM's opinion, but it's hardly the deciding factor in the final decision
There is very little changed since the CC said they had a monopoly. They still have exclusive deals with six major Hollywood studios.
I don't disagree, but it hasn't stopped Netflix and LoveFilm being competitive has it and both have access to a vast library of movies.
If Tesco's had an exclusive deal to sell full cream milk Asda and Sainsbury's would still sell loads of other milk. That wouldn't make it right and Tesco's would still be operating a monopoly.
If Tesco's had loads of exclusive deals operating like that so that it was becoming pointless shopping anywhere else then something would be done about it. If Tesco's had thought to buy into the newspaper industry and start trading their newspapers support for an unwritten agreement that they would be let alone they might have got away with it though.
Comments
I know much of what she says is true but it would be good to hear something new from her rather than recycled information that other journalists originally reported.
But her line about Sky News one day morphing into Fox should have cobwebs on it by now, I honestly must have heard her say it 100 times. She has so much factual ammunition she dosen't need to trawl a hypothetical scenario out so often.
On the contrary, the BBC use her at every opportunity - Dateline London, Question Time etc - as a mouthpiece for their own left wing views.
To be honest Derek, and I appreciate you aren't paid for your comments, but I'm finding your comments far more incorrect and misleading than those of PT.
By the way: FYI:
Source: Sky Annual Report 2011
Inparticular see page 112 of that document to see how much they really pay in tax. My reading is (if someone can correct me please do so, it's not that clear to a non-financial person such as myself) if they paid standard corporation tax that would be 489m for 2011. They actually paid 38m.
How often is she on then? daily, weekly or as it seems to me, occasionally?
And there we have the classic 'biased' post.
So Dateline London, Question Time should only have what..right wing views on it? But that would be biased wouldn't it? How about only left wing views...nope...that would also be biased. How about only centre field views...nope again that would be biased.
Or is it a case that some see biased because their own views or political leanings should be THE ONLY views being expressed, therefore if a counter view or argument is made it is biased broadcasting.
Do the BBC use her at every opportunity? Please continue with the list beyond DL and QT because with all the Murdoch Scandal of the last year or so I assume she is never off Newsnight and the likes.
Over several shows I'd say weekly isn't an unreasonable estimate but it's just that, an estimate.
But she will be balanced out by someone with differing views or the interviewers will certainly put the other side of things so I don't see the problem.
That's good debate.
LOL! And of course that well known 'left-wing sympathiser' Nigel Farage was on QT last night too...as he also regularly is, perhaps acting as a mouthpiece for the Beeb too...
But it's not just 10p.
10m subscribers paying say £20 a month = £20,000,000
Or if I've done my sums right a mere £240m a year?
Retail subscription £5.455m . So 10% is £545m.
As the only money NewsCorp receive from BSkyB is dividends like all the other shareholders, it would appear that Polly has got it around the wrong way and 10% goes to News Corp and Hollywood.
BSkyB pay about 50% of their profits in dividends, so on £1bn they would pay out £500m of which NewsCorp would get 39.1% (£195m) The other £350m going on Hollywood studio deals.
Why do they only pay for Hollywood deals out of their profits, what about all their other rights (Premier League being by far the most expensive?). Wouldn't they pay for rights out of their revenues, with profits (income) being over and above what the business costs to run?
They didn't pay 50% of their profits in dividends last year (does any company?), they paid a total of £253 millions.
http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/latest_results/fy_press_release_1011
Are you sure? If just under half the country has Sky (currently)...and if all Sky subscribers spent more time watching Sky than any other network, why isn't it reflected in the ratings and audience shares?
The figures suggest to me that Polly is bang on the money...more people spend more time with the BBC than any other broadcaster. Why...because it is the best broadcaster in the world...and carries no ads! Evidence...check out the Barb website!
Reality check...if Murdoch could buy up everything around the world, he would. It is naive to think otherwise. All Murdoch is interested in is his business and the wonga he can make...no-one and nothing else.
Polly and anyone else doing a bit of Sky bashing is fine by me. The Murdoch influence and dominance seen currently in the UK needs and must be rolled back...in my view.
2nd January 2012
I suggest that the 90p is a simple error that, of course, should have been picked up by the editorial process.
Perhaps derek500 might wish to take this up with PT directly rather than providing yet another distraction from the reality that is the current News Corp scandal!
...and that was a clear and present danger...which is still hanging around now. I would oppose it big time.
How is it that a non-UK citizen is allowed so much power and influence in our country? Murdoch's operations are anti-democratic...in my view.
It was a danger (if they managed to get broadcasting rules changed).
I think it's clear News Corp are never going to be able to own Sky now so I don't see the point of a hypothetical being trawled out, not when there are so many other devastating facts out there.
But I assume you have read the BBC Director General's comments on this subject?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/mark-thompson-bbc-fox-news
Brilliant post.
I watch a lot of BBC programming, because in my view, it can't be beaten. I also want to see a broad and balanced mix of views expressed, which I get on the BBC.
Anyone remember Nick Griffen on Question Time? How about...Nigel Farrage? ...Douglas Carswell? ...Simon Schama? ...Simon Sharkey? Are they all lefties? Of course not. Do I agree with their views? Definately not. Should they appear on Question Time and the like? Yes, absolutely.
Someone remind me, which TV show do we see Michael Portillo appear on every week?
I am tired and bored of some on here screaming 'BBC bias' when they hear or see views expressed which they disagree with. We live in a democracy. Part of the BBC's role is to express views within our democracy, which in my view, it does brilliantly.
Would we have balance if the BBC was the equivalent of Fox News?
That would be more in the future which has nothing to do with the context in which I quoted them. It's beside the point anyway. OFCOM have told them not to delay as they don't think Netflix and Lovefilm changes things much.
I have another explanation - Polly's crackers.
The Sky / Murdoch threat is still there. People need to be continuously reminded of it.
How close were we to a Murdoch takeover?
'totally swerves the article'
You are as biased as Hunt!
The Murdoch's will soon be finished in the UK, and possibly in News Corp too. It's over.
But Sky will continue to do what they do well, whoever controls them or whatever it may end up being called. Pay TV is going nowhere, simple as that.
I wasn't trying to take your post out of context, but merely pointing out that the Pay TV movies market is not as monopolised as some would think. I don't think Netflix or LoveFilm is a future issue as they are both fairly well established in the UK as we speak, hence the CC delaying their findings to take on board the impact these companes have on Movies rights in the UK. What OFCOM thinks on the matter is irrelevant as it's the Competition Commission who decides what's competitive and anti-competitive. The CC may take on board OFCOM's opinion, but it's hardly the deciding factor in the final decision
There is very little changed since the CC said they had a monopoly. They still have exclusive deals with six major Hollywood studios.
I don't disagree, but it hasn't stopped Netflix and LoveFilm being competitive has it and both have access to a vast library of movies.
If Tesco's had an exclusive deal to sell full cream milk Asda and Sainsbury's would still sell loads of other milk. That wouldn't make it right and Tesco's would still be operating a monopoly.
If Tesco's had loads of exclusive deals operating like that so that it was becoming pointless shopping anywhere else then something would be done about it. If Tesco's had thought to buy into the newspaper industry and start trading their newspapers support for an unwritten agreement that they would be let alone they might have got away with it though.