"Select committee also says James Murdoch showed 'wilful ignorance' of extent of phone hacking at News of the World"
No doubt this parliamentary report will be looked at by Ofcom's officials who are currently conducting the fitness test in respect of News Corporation and Sky.
My own view is that the culmination of James Murdoch's appearances before the Culture Select Commitee, the Leveson Inquiry and now the Culture Select Commitee's report means that his current position as a Sky board member is untenable and he ought to resign before he's pushed out by a damning Ofcom report.
I would also not be at all surprised if Ofcom forced News Corporation to significantly reduce their stakeholding in Sky to, for example, something like 12.5% so that it's not a controlling stake.
If it hadn't been for Rupert Murdoch and Sky we would all be stuck with the iron grip of the state on 5 lousy channels still. Don't forget it was people like Rupert Murdoch who broke the state's hold on broadcasting in the first place.
I doubt anyone would forget, and he may have been the angel Gabriel. Noetheless there is nothing to prevent angels falling from grace, And who knows what might have happened? I don't think you can say we would be stuck with such certainty[/QUOTE]
We need sky to be out of the hands of the likes of Ofcom.
True agenda is evident, I say no company should be beyond some form of external regulation. Please tell us what makes Sky so different.:rolleyes:
If it hadn't been for Rupert Murdoch and Sky we would all be stuck with the iron grip of the state on 5 lousy channels still. Don't forget it was people like Rupert Murdoch who broke the state's hold on broadcasting in the first place. We need sky to be out of the hands of the likes of Ofcom.
So few posts in so much time...must be a sleeper!
Seriously Fslot, isn't there a world of difference between defending healthy competition, and defending the chokehold RM and co got on the British parliamentary establishment (who were absolutely complicit of course) and therefore managed to get on their business competitors?
If it hadn't been for Rupert Murdoch and Sky we would all be stuck with the iron grip of the state on 5 lousy channels still. Don't forget it was people like Rupert Murdoch who broke the state's hold on broadcasting in the first place. We need sky to be out of the hands of the likes of Ofcom.
If Sky had never existed then BSB would still have happened. To suggest they wouldn't have grown over the years is unrealistic and today they'd almost certainly be something like Sky.
Without Sky and Murdoch they probably would have not run into financial trouble, though their growth may have been slower.
by 6 to 4 the committee DID find him 'unfit', thus it is the democratic view of the whole committee.
I did not realise that they were acting as a jury. Parliamentary committees produce reports which often have differing views, they do not give Guilty or Not Guilt verdicts.
Er, maybe you are not aware of the seriousness of the situation here, and how damning is the verdict from the cross-party DCMS Select Committee (which is what this thread is about, and it's not about what good Sky have done as a broadcaster)
Actually without Rupert we would have had BSB, a digital service live and operational. We would also have had On Digital. SKY scuppered both of those competitors - the second with allegedly dodgy hacked cards.
If it hadn't been for Rupert Murdoch and Sky we would all be stuck with the iron grip of the state on 5 lousy channels still. Don't forget it was people like Rupert Murdoch who broke the state's hold on broadcasting in the first place. We need sky to be out of the hands of the likes of Ofcom.
So you think it is ok for Sky to hack other people computers to read their e-mails.
You think that it is ok for Murdoch to hack peoples' phones.
I for one certainly don't like a company that does that and will not donate a single penny to Murdoch and his cronies.
The question is David Cameron fit-and-proper-person to be P.M as he was in bed with the Murdochs.
Even though he has had less meetings with them than BLiar and Brown?
Someone mentioned Maxwell in an earlier post, I think many younger people know little about him. He makes Murdoch look like saint and was very closely linked to Labour, I think there are still a few senior people tainted from their links to him.
At least Murdoch was close to all parties and was only interested in which would win elections. He would support the MRP if he thought they would win the election.
Actually without Rupert we would have had BSB, a digital service live and operational. We would also have had On Digital. SKY scuppered both of those competitors - the second with allegedly dodgy hacked cards.
We might have a more open system with many broadcasters competing on satellite rather than one having far too much control. It should be more like terrestrial with a number of broadcasters having joint ownership of the platform.
by 6 to 4 the committee DID find him 'unfit', thus it is the democratic view of the whole committee.
Select committees are not juries. Usually there is a consensus that cuts across party lines, or even unanamity even if that means two sides compromising to reach mutually acceptable wording. A 6-4 split does not send the right message but that's what happens when a damming report comes out.
If Sky had never existed then BSB would still have happened. To suggest they wouldn't have grown over the years is unrealistic and today they'd almost certainly be something like Sky.
If it hadn't been for Rupert Murdoch and Sky we would all be stuck with the iron grip of the state on 5 lousy channels still. Don't forget it was people like Rupert Murdoch who broke the state's hold on broadcasting in the first place. We need sky to be out of the hands of the likes of Ofcom.
Check your facts please. There was multi-channel television on satellite and cable before the launch of Sky's system in 1989 I should know, i was a presenter on the sports channel.
There was no 'iron grip' but a regulated public service system that produced excellent television, based on quality rather than sheer quqantity. That same system produced BSB which was stifled and swallowed-up almost at birth by Murdoch's 'enterprise'.
Yes it was a huge financial gamble by Murdoch to launch the Sky multichannel system but he has consistently blocked all attempts to indulge in the 'liberated, free market' that he and his minions so often publicly espouse.
The truth is that his organisation believes as much in a 'free market' as a lizard sunning itself on a rock. Like most businessmen he would be a monopolist if given a totally free hand. No wonder he wants 'liberation' from control. He had the financial resources to bankroll the development of Sky, playing a long game knowing that with the monies provided by his gutter press could fund it and take care of all comers.
Satellite TV was an opportunity to provide the electronic equivalent of a newsagent, offering mass appeal and specialist interest programming. Instead the technology has been hijacked to provide lowest common denominator pap with a thin veneer of quality covering the crap in the form of the likes of Sky Arts
Except in areas like sport and 'movies' (both extortionately-priced) we actually have less real choice now than before. Sky's brutal competition has emasculated ITV, driven Channel Four downmarket to compete and has tried, thankfully unsuccessfully so far to corral the BBC in a narrow, specialist-only market and to turn it into a pitiful British version of PBS.
I can now watch endless formulaic american drama, and banal celebrity-obsessed programming. The best American programmes used to make it onto the regulated system and new technology would have allowed an expansion, but not the total absorption of 'commodity' TV that we have now, the equivalent of buying books 'by the yard'.
I find precious little to watch now away from BBC, not being interested in pulp american drama or brainless pap such as on the 'lifetstyle' channels or programming aimed at the youth market. Most of what I can find worth watching away from the BBC is in fact programmes originally shown by the Beeb and now repeated on UKTV.
Murdoch cornered the market in encrypting technology when Astra had only 16 transponders. This killed several early English-language rivals, including my own station. It has been ruthless economic muscle based on selling crap to morons that has created the modern Sky, with its literally extortionate pricing.
Murdoch prostituted multichannel TV and now the methods behind the scenes are finally coming out. Sadly there are plenty of right wing idiots who think he's some kind of free market hero. No, it's not like that and the truth is finally emerging.
Check your facts please. There was multi-channel television on satellite and cable before the launch of Sky's system in 1989 I should know, i was a presenter on the sports channel.
There was no 'iron grip' but a regulated public service system that produced excellent television, based on quality rather than sheer quqantity. That same system produced BSB which was stifled and swallowed-up almost at birth by Murdoch's 'enterprise'.
Yes it was a huge financial gamble by Murdoch to launch the Sky multichannel system but he has consistently blocked all attempts to indulge in the 'liberated, free market' that he and his minions so often publicly espouse.
The truth is that his organisation believes as much in a 'free market' as a lizard sunning itself on a rock. Like most businessmen he would be a monopolist if given a totally free hand. No wonder he wants 'liberation' from control. He had the financial resources to bankroll the development of Sky, playing a long game knowing that with the monies provided by his gutter press could fund it and take care of all comers.
Satellite TV was an opportunity to provide the electronic equivalent of a newsagent, offering mass appeal and specialist interest programming. Instead the technology has been hijacked to provide lowest common denominator pap with a thin veneer of quality covering the crap in the form of the likes of Sky Arts
Except in areas like sport and 'movies' (both extortionately-priced) we actually have less real choice now than before. Sky's brutal competition has emasculated ITV, driven Channel Four downmarket to compete and has tried, thankfully unsuccessfully so far to corral the BBC in a narrow, specialist-only market and to turn it into a pitiful British version of PBS.
I can now watch endless formulaic american drama, and banal celebrity-obsessed programming. The best American programmes used to make it onto the regulated system and new technology would have allowed an expansion, but not the total absorption of 'commodity' TV that we have now, the equivalent of buying books 'by the yard'.
I find precious little to watch now away from BBC, not being interested in pulp american drama or brainless pap such as on the 'lifetstyle' channels or programming aimed at the youth market. Most of what I can find worth watching away from the BBC is in fact programmes originally shown by the Beeb and now repeated on UKTV.
Murdoch cornered the market in encrypting technology when Astra had only 16 transponders. This killed several early English-language rivals, including my own station. It has been ruthless economic muscle based on selling crap to morons that has created the modern Sky, with its literally extortionate pricing.
Murdoch prostituted multichannel TV and now the methods behind the scenes are finally coming out. Sadly there are plenty of right wing idiots who think he's some kind of free market hero. No, it's not like that and the truth is finally emerging.
Sky started back in 1982 as Satellite Television Ltd, R.M took it over in 83 renamed it sky in 84. And I take it you worked for Screensport that started 84.
Even though he has had less meetings with them than BLiar and Brown?
Someone mentioned Maxwell in an earlier post, I think many younger people know little about him. He makes Murdoch look like saint and was very closely linked to Labour, I think there are still a few senior people tainted from their links to him.
At least Murdoch was close to all parties and was only interested in which would win elections. He would support the MRP if he thought they would win the election.
Murdoch was never close to the Lib-Dems...the Tories were keen to slate Labour over Maxwell and his dodgy dealings, now it's their turn to squirm regarding Murdoch and their dealings with him
Sky started back in 1982 as Satellite Television Ltd, R.M took it over in 83 renamed it sky in 84. And I take it you worked for Screensport that started 84.
Yes I did. I was a commentator and presenter, and yes the single Sky Channel was owned by Murdoch. It was five years though before the launch of the high-power Astra system and Murdoch's multi-channel system.
It was necessary to counter the previous poster's claim that if it wasn't for Murdoch we would only have five channels. Of course in 1984 it was 4...
I'd rather have that four than endless piss-poor clones of Sky 1.
Yes I did. I was a commentator and presenter, and yes the single Sky Channel was owned by Murdoch. It was five years though before the launch of the high-power Astra system and Murdoch's multi-channel system.
It was necessary to counter the previous poster's claim that if it wasn't for Murdoch we would only have five channels. Of course in 1984 it was 4...
I'd rather have that four than endless piss-poor clones of Sky 1.
I loved the pan-European sky got it on mktv in 84 when I was only 9.
If Sky had never existed then BSB would still have happened. To suggest they wouldn't have grown over the years is unrealistic and today they'd almost certainly be something like Sky.
Without Sky and Murdoch they probably would have not run into financial trouble, though their growth may have been slower.
It would have happened, maybe not for another 10 years or so, and the channel choice would have been a lot smaller, the funding would not have been there, don't forget millions were ploughed into Sky which ran at a loss for years.
This I doubt would have happened if say BSB had carried on, they did not have the funding to expand and buy an extensive line up
Now some say less channels would be better, which I tend to agree with
Comments
I can not honestly say he is a honest person :DThat goes for Murdoch and David Cameron and quite a few MP's
No doubt this parliamentary report will be looked at by Ofcom's officials who are currently conducting the fitness test in respect of News Corporation and Sky.
My own view is that the culmination of James Murdoch's appearances before the Culture Select Commitee, the Leveson Inquiry and now the Culture Select Commitee's report means that his current position as a Sky board member is untenable and he ought to resign before he's pushed out by a damning Ofcom report.
I would also not be at all surprised if Ofcom forced News Corporation to significantly reduce their stakeholding in Sky to, for example, something like 12.5% so that it's not a controlling stake.
True agenda is evident, I say no company should be beyond some form of external regulation. Please tell us what makes Sky so different.:rolleyes:
So few posts in so much time...must be a sleeper!
Seriously Fslot, isn't there a world of difference between defending healthy competition, and defending the chokehold RM and co got on the British parliamentary establishment (who were absolutely complicit of course) and therefore managed to get on their business competitors?
Perhaps they have already read Tom Watson's book where he leaked the conclusions for his own profit.
If Sky had never existed then BSB would still have happened. To suggest they wouldn't have grown over the years is unrealistic and today they'd almost certainly be something like Sky.
Without Sky and Murdoch they probably would have not run into financial trouble, though their growth may have been slower.
I was listening to them discussing it on Radio 4 PM programme. They said that it will not carry much weight because it is so partisan.
I did not realise that they were acting as a jury. Parliamentary committees produce reports which often have differing views, they do not give Guilty or Not Guilt verdicts.
Actually without Rupert we would have had BSB, a digital service live and operational. We would also have had On Digital. SKY scuppered both of those competitors - the second with allegedly dodgy hacked cards.
So you think it is ok for Sky to hack other people computers to read their e-mails.
You think that it is ok for Murdoch to hack peoples' phones.
I for one certainly don't like a company that does that and will not donate a single penny to Murdoch and his cronies.
Even though he has had less meetings with them than BLiar and Brown?
Someone mentioned Maxwell in an earlier post, I think many younger people know little about him. He makes Murdoch look like saint and was very closely linked to Labour, I think there are still a few senior people tainted from their links to him.
At least Murdoch was close to all parties and was only interested in which would win elections. He would support the MRP if he thought they would win the election.
We might have a more open system with many broadcasters competing on satellite rather than one having far too much control. It should be more like terrestrial with a number of broadcasters having joint ownership of the platform.
Select committees are not juries. Usually there is a consensus that cuts across party lines, or even unanamity even if that means two sides compromising to reach mutually acceptable wording. A 6-4 split does not send the right message but that's what happens when a damming report comes out.
Agree completely.
Check your facts please. There was multi-channel television on satellite and cable before the launch of Sky's system in 1989 I should know, i was a presenter on the sports channel.
There was no 'iron grip' but a regulated public service system that produced excellent television, based on quality rather than sheer quqantity. That same system produced BSB which was stifled and swallowed-up almost at birth by Murdoch's 'enterprise'.
Yes it was a huge financial gamble by Murdoch to launch the Sky multichannel system but he has consistently blocked all attempts to indulge in the 'liberated, free market' that he and his minions so often publicly espouse.
The truth is that his organisation believes as much in a 'free market' as a lizard sunning itself on a rock. Like most businessmen he would be a monopolist if given a totally free hand. No wonder he wants 'liberation' from control. He had the financial resources to bankroll the development of Sky, playing a long game knowing that with the monies provided by his gutter press could fund it and take care of all comers.
Satellite TV was an opportunity to provide the electronic equivalent of a newsagent, offering mass appeal and specialist interest programming. Instead the technology has been hijacked to provide lowest common denominator pap with a thin veneer of quality covering the crap in the form of the likes of Sky Arts
Except in areas like sport and 'movies' (both extortionately-priced) we actually have less real choice now than before. Sky's brutal competition has emasculated ITV, driven Channel Four downmarket to compete and has tried, thankfully unsuccessfully so far to corral the BBC in a narrow, specialist-only market and to turn it into a pitiful British version of PBS.
I can now watch endless formulaic american drama, and banal celebrity-obsessed programming. The best American programmes used to make it onto the regulated system and new technology would have allowed an expansion, but not the total absorption of 'commodity' TV that we have now, the equivalent of buying books 'by the yard'.
I find precious little to watch now away from BBC, not being interested in pulp american drama or brainless pap such as on the 'lifetstyle' channels or programming aimed at the youth market. Most of what I can find worth watching away from the BBC is in fact programmes originally shown by the Beeb and now repeated on UKTV.
Murdoch cornered the market in encrypting technology when Astra had only 16 transponders. This killed several early English-language rivals, including my own station. It has been ruthless economic muscle based on selling crap to morons that has created the modern Sky, with its literally extortionate pricing.
Murdoch prostituted multichannel TV and now the methods behind the scenes are finally coming out. Sadly there are plenty of right wing idiots who think he's some kind of free market hero. No, it's not like that and the truth is finally emerging.
That won't even make the DS Breaking News banner!
A needless statement if ever there was one.
Sky started back in 1982 as Satellite Television Ltd, R.M took it over in 83 renamed it sky in 84. And I take it you worked for Screensport that started 84.
More competition driving prices down. No wonder Uncle Rupert stuck the knife in.
Nonsense....
Murdoch was never close to the Lib-Dems...the Tories were keen to slate Labour over Maxwell and his dodgy dealings, now it's their turn to squirm regarding Murdoch and their dealings with him
Yes I did. I was a commentator and presenter, and yes the single Sky Channel was owned by Murdoch. It was five years though before the launch of the high-power Astra system and Murdoch's multi-channel system.
It was necessary to counter the previous poster's claim that if it wasn't for Murdoch we would only have five channels. Of course in 1984 it was 4...
I'd rather have that four than endless piss-poor clones of Sky 1.
I loved the pan-European sky got it on mktv in 84 when I was only 9.
They were the ones that got 'caught' but I have no doubt it is probably rife throughout the media
It would have happened, maybe not for another 10 years or so, and the channel choice would have been a lot smaller, the funding would not have been there, don't forget millions were ploughed into Sky which ran at a loss for years.
This I doubt would have happened if say BSB had carried on, they did not have the funding to expand and buy an extensive line up
Now some say less channels would be better, which I tend to agree with