Why does everyone automatically accept that Murdoch has lost his power?
I think you'll find that the rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated.
If OFCOM were to decide that News Corp, one of the LARGEST media and film companies in the world was no longer considered a fit company to hold its share of Sky, I can assure you that the last thing that would happen is News Corp selling up and going away!
I would more likely expect to see Sky as a company de-registered in the UK and its head office moved to somewhere like Luxembourg.
At which point News Corp will complete its takeover and leave the government and the anti skybrigade looking a bit stupid.
At the same time the Murdoch papers will start methodically hunting down every single story they can to make all the politicians lives not worth living.
Murdoch is a force of nature and won't be stopped by these little people.
Zero chance.
1) Independent directors would stop it
2) More importantly it would be a FRAUD ON THE MINORITY (even though "minority" is 61%).
He did gamble a lot, of that there is no doubt. Over the years I have admired a great deal he has done and I acknowledge he was the driving force behind the fantastic company that BSkyB is today. I am a very contented Sky customer.
Sadly his British newspaper company has been categorically proven to have been riddled with staff and executives who had not a jot of respect for the Government, the Police and the public who bought the newspapers. In fact they have shown total disdain for the Law. I have no doubt if they had not been caught they would still be doing so now.
In my opinion he has lost all legitimacy to be involved in UK broadcasting and I don't say that lightly.
^ This point has already been made and answered up the page! :yawn:
Posts 115 & 119
Like many, when catching up with many posts in a thread, I read a post and reply to it. I don't read the whole remainder of the thread and then studiously note down which posts have and have not had a reply.
I don't think I'm talking about subsidy in this case - I talking about the retention of diversity.If I said Thalidomide I would open myself to accusations of being lost in the past.
If I said it would give those who lean to the right a choice, would that do?
but that's the problem, the declining number of 'elsewheres' to go.
Do you think there is no value in trying to preserve something with a venerable past?
The Thalidomide story was almost a decade before Murdoch even acquired the Times. Surely you can think of more recent examples?
As for giving a choice to those who lean to the right, there obviously aren't enough of these customers for the Times to support itself in the same way that the Telegraph and the left-leaning Guardian and Independent can. I thought right-wingers were supposed to be big on letting the market decide its own fate?
I see no value in trying to preserve a failing newspaper just because its name and reputation were once great.
As for giving a choice to those who lean to the right, there obviously aren't enough of these customers for the Times to support itself in the same way that the Telegraph and the left-leaning Guardian and Independent can. I thought right-wingers were supposed to be big on letting the market decide its own fate?
I see no value in trying to preserve a failing newspaper just because its name and reputation were once great.
The Guardian loses money and I think it's likely The Independent does too.
I'm sure The Times will survive - for one thing I'm sure its cost base could be cut substantially if so desired. It's basically being run at the moment without attempting to maximise profits (/ minimise losses).
Why does everyone automatically accept that Murdoch has lost his power?
I think you'll find that the rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated.
If OFCOM were to decide that News Corp, one of the LARGEST media and film companies in the world was no longer considered a fit company to hold its share of Sky, I can assure you that the last thing that would happen is News Corp selling up and going away!
I would more likely expect to see Sky as a company de-registered in the UK and its head office moved to somewhere like Luxembourg.
At which point News Corp will complete its takeover and leave the government and the anti skybrigade looking a bit stupid.
At the same time the Murdoch papers will start methodically hunting down every single story they can to make all the politicians lives not worth living.
Murdoch is a force of nature and won't be stopped by these little people.
That may be true but coming from somebody who has been one of Murdoch's biggest supporters on this forum that last statement is absolutely chilling. I can't imagine anybody would make a statement like that and still support him.
Incredible!
In the unlikely event that NI decided to sell their Sky shares one option would be to sell them to Sun readers. Tie-in articles could extol the virtues of share ownership. Their might even be an ISA package. The advertising slogan could be "Tell Rupe".
Failining that there might be some Middle Eastern soverign wealth funds or the odd Russian looking to diversify.
Why does everyone automatically accept that Murdoch has lost his power?
I think you'll find that the rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated.
If OFCOM were to decide that News Corp, one of the LARGEST media and film companies in the world was no longer considered a fit company to hold its share of Sky, I can assure you that the last thing that would happen is News Corp selling up and going away!
I would more likely expect to see Sky as a company de-registered in the UK and its head office moved to somewhere like Luxembourg.
At which point News Corp will complete its takeover and leave the government and the anti skybrigade looking a bit stupid.
At the same time the Murdoch papers will start methodically hunting down every single story they can to make all the politicians lives not worth living.
Murdoch is a force of nature and won't be stopped by these little people.
I think you make a very GOOD CASE why NEWS CORP/MURDOCH needs to be got rid of, but you may be talking a load of rubbish he or they may not be the big threat to the uk that you think he or they are
What if Rupes refuses to sell? Could his non-compliance self-destruct the company if Ofcom declares NewsCorp unfit to hold broadcasting licences?
No, because if there were such an impass and it was clear that the evidence against NI were strong, then the other shareholders would react against the plumbeting share price by suing for damages.
Is it just me, but if this was about the BBC you'd be screaming Blue Murder by now?
In answer to this point (hopefully without digressing) in order to use my TV at all for broadcast services, I'm compelled to pay the BBC subscription liecence fee of £12.25/month, at least Sky subscriptions are completely optional and consequently I pay them the nothing they deserve, nor do I buy newspapers, so I'm not directly contributing to their empire.
Unfortunatley the BBC has to pay sky a fair sum every year for the right to be on skys platform & so Murdoch is getting corperate welfare from us, on top of governments all to willing to alter laws, exclude it from acts of parliament & none referal to the monopolies & mergers commision. I would say that Mr Murdoch has done very well out of the British taxpayer in one form or another.
In answer to this point (hopefully without digressing) in order to use my TV at all for broadcast services, I'm compelled to pay the BBC subscription liecence fee of £12.25/month, at least Sky subscriptions are completely optional and consequently I pay them the nothing they deserve, nor do I buy newspapers, so I'm not directly contributing to their empire.
Thank you for answering the question.
But, i don't think you should be appealing for leniency, and dissing the BBC at every available opportunity, just because their funding methods are different.
Unfortunatley the BBC has to pay sky a fair sum every year for the right to be on skys platform & so Murdoch is getting corperate welfare from us, on top of governments all to willing to alter laws, exclude it from acts of parliament & none referal to the monopolies & mergers commision. I would say that Mr Murdoch has done very well out of the British taxpayer in one form or another.
Then make the BBC a commercial enterprise. If you can pay the licence fee without the threat of a fine or prison then you can be free to make the choice of what you want to watch. Sky is therefore more democratic than the BBC. Why should you be bound to the licence fee just to watch television? Smacks of state control. I would like to purchase a Sky subscription without having to pay the licence fee. I don't want to watch the BBC. It is a dreadful amateur outfit. I want to watch the future. Which at the current time is Sky.
Then make the BBC a commercial enterprise. If you can pay the licence fee without the threat of a fine or prison then you can be free to make the choice of what you want to watch. Sky is therefore more democratic than the BBC. Why should you be bound to the licence fee just to watch television? Smacks of state control. I would like to purchase a Sky subscription without having to pay the licence fee. I don't want to watch the BBC. It is a dreadful amateur outfit. I want to watch the future. Which at the current time is Sky.
You make me smile , when someone say's there should be more choice ie two or pay tv provider's you sky lover's say that will put up cost's now you want the BBC to become a pay tv provider, I love the BBC and ITV and channel4&5
Murdochs whole intention with his plan to buy up Sky was to make him the dominant force, coupled with a governmnet quite happy to reign in the BBC & take OFCOMS teeth out, nothing democratic about engineering a situation that enables one dominant & has been shown dubious outfit to given carte blanche to do what it likes , a point shown in the way that his newspapers have behaved.
Better to give the BBC £145 knowing that its not lining the pockets of people who have been shown to be blind to whats going on, whose corrupt & illegal practices have been laid bare. Say what you like about the BBC , at least its not been shown to be a discredited organisation thats reliant upon using its position to print the governments propoganda in return for favours that allows it to dodge acts of parliament, referals to the monopolies commission, let alone its now discredited form of news gathering , how many BBC journalists are facing prosecution, how many of its editors or Chief executives are facing jail?How many cosy chats has the BBC had with Mr Cameron & the Chancellor so as to bend policy , get discredited former editors who where running a paper where ilicit practices where going on installed into the heart of no 10?
The BBC isnt perfect , but id rather have a state controlled broadcaster that has some kind of moral compass , than a private monopoly outfit that wants my money instead so as to be the dominant player & use its many aquired favours over the years thats put it in the place that it is to be the only vehIcle with which to access news & services. Mr Murdoch may complain that the BBC website gets 12million hits , but he should ask himself why?
The BBC's commercial activites have been scaled back due to the 2009 James Murdoch lecture, then the various meetings between Mr Osborne , Cameron to get NI on board & as Rupert stated a bit of scratch my back, scratch your back was undertaken & so Mr Camerons bonfire of the quangos mentions OFCOM & the BBC undergos a license fee freeze that was negociated by Mr Hunt himself? State control / collusion to allow a private monopoly to be the major player?
Mr Murdochs dealings with the various governments eager to use his 'empires' media prowess has paid off nicely & if it wasnt for the dogged determintaion of a few individuals , then his ultimate ambition would have been realised & that 'future' would have made us all the poorer & him & his company all the richer. The secret heart of Rupert Murdoch is 'The Sun' . Yesterdays headlines about Roy Hodgson & using his speech impediment gives a clear indication of the very narrow escape weve had from this type of 'journalism' being enacted via the television network.
You make me smile , when someone say's there should be more choice ie two or pay tv provider's you sky lover's say that will put up cost's now you want the BBC to become a pay tv provider, I love the BBC and ITV and channel4&5
Not as much as your post yesterday made me smile.
"...it was hacked by NDS a NEWS CORP campany at the time and that's what destroyed BSB,..." :eek:
Satalite provider's in all countries had analogue and had lots more channels than arial broadcaster's. So it was satalite that allowed more channel's and BSB would have done the same as sky did, (except the hacking by sky news because of the Murdoch influence) but as the panarama programe ( MURDOCH'S TV PIRATES) pointed out it was hacked by NDS a NEWS CORP campany at the time and that's what destroyed BSB, so it was nothing to do with the Murdoch's or SKY it was just natural progress in broadcasting
Could you explain further how BSB was "destroyed" by NDS??
Better to give the BBC £145 knowing that its not lining the pockets of people who have been shown to be blind to whats going on, whose corrupt & illegal practices have been laid bare.
Can you state that NONE of the BBC licence fee ends up in Murdoch coffers?
With millions spents on broadcast deals for Sky platforms for TV radio and associated red button provisions, FOX TV series and movies deals for content on BBC channels, joint ventures like the F1 coverage etc., the compulsory BBC licence fee is surely playing a role in supporting Murdoch's empire.
And if I want to use my TV, I have no choice to opt out.
You make me smile , when someone say's there should be more choice ie two or pay tv provider's you sky lover's say that will put up cost's now you want the BBC to become a pay tv provider, I love the BBC and ITV and channel4&5
Choice WILL put the price up, it is so obvious, they need to make a profit, and with a smaller audience, it will need higher subs, anyway it will not affect you, as you cannot watch Sky nor C4 / C5 ITV etc, as you do not live in the UK.
It is by luck, not design that you are able to watch, but I assume contribute nothing
Unfortunatley the BBC has to pay sky a fair sum every year for the right to be on skys platform & so Murdoch is getting corperate welfare from us, on top of governments all to willing to alter laws, exclude it from acts of parliament & none referal to the monopolies & mergers commision. I would say that Mr Murdoch has done very well out of the British taxpayer in one form or another.
The BBC does not HAVE to pay Sky anything, they could remove themselves from the EPG and remain on Freesat, and accessed on 'Sky' by using add channels. it suits the BBC to appear on the EPG, if didn't, we would not be swamped with umpteen BBC channels on there clogging up the EPG!
Comments
Zero chance.
1) Independent directors would stop it
2) More importantly it would be a FRAUD ON THE MINORITY (even though "minority" is 61%).
High Court would stop it in 5 minutes.
I agree with almost every single word of this.
Possibly, we'll see!
If I had to bet I'd still say it'll be quite a while.
Like many, when catching up with many posts in a thread, I read a post and reply to it. I don't read the whole remainder of the thread and then studiously note down which posts have and have not had a reply.
As for giving a choice to those who lean to the right, there obviously aren't enough of these customers for the Times to support itself in the same way that the Telegraph and the left-leaning Guardian and Independent can. I thought right-wingers were supposed to be big on letting the market decide its own fate?
I see no value in trying to preserve a failing newspaper just because its name and reputation were once great.
The Guardian loses money and I think it's likely The Independent does too.
I'm sure The Times will survive - for one thing I'm sure its cost base could be cut substantially if so desired. It's basically being run at the moment without attempting to maximise profits (/ minimise losses).
Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” - Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
That may be true but coming from somebody who has been one of Murdoch's biggest supporters on this forum that last statement is absolutely chilling. I can't imagine anybody would make a statement like that and still support him.
Incredible!
Failining that there might be some Middle Eastern soverign wealth funds or the odd Russian looking to diversify.
I think you make a very GOOD CASE why NEWS CORP/MURDOCH needs to be got rid of, but you may be talking a load of rubbish he or they may not be the big threat to the uk that you think he or they are
No, because if there were such an impass and it was clear that the evidence against NI were strong, then the other shareholders would react against the plumbeting share price by suing for damages.
Thank you for answering the question.
But, i don't think you should be appealing for leniency, and dissing the BBC at every available opportunity, just because their funding methods are different.
Do you?
Then make the BBC a commercial enterprise. If you can pay the licence fee without the threat of a fine or prison then you can be free to make the choice of what you want to watch. Sky is therefore more democratic than the BBC. Why should you be bound to the licence fee just to watch television? Smacks of state control. I would like to purchase a Sky subscription without having to pay the licence fee. I don't want to watch the BBC. It is a dreadful amateur outfit. I want to watch the future. Which at the current time is Sky.
You make me smile , when someone say's there should be more choice ie two or pay tv provider's you sky lover's say that will put up cost's now you want the BBC to become a pay tv provider, I love the BBC and ITV and channel4&5
Better to give the BBC £145 knowing that its not lining the pockets of people who have been shown to be blind to whats going on, whose corrupt & illegal practices have been laid bare. Say what you like about the BBC , at least its not been shown to be a discredited organisation thats reliant upon using its position to print the governments propoganda in return for favours that allows it to dodge acts of parliament, referals to the monopolies commission, let alone its now discredited form of news gathering , how many BBC journalists are facing prosecution, how many of its editors or Chief executives are facing jail?How many cosy chats has the BBC had with Mr Cameron & the Chancellor so as to bend policy , get discredited former editors who where running a paper where ilicit practices where going on installed into the heart of no 10?
The BBC isnt perfect , but id rather have a state controlled broadcaster that has some kind of moral compass , than a private monopoly outfit that wants my money instead so as to be the dominant player & use its many aquired favours over the years thats put it in the place that it is to be the only vehIcle with which to access news & services. Mr Murdoch may complain that the BBC website gets 12million hits , but he should ask himself why?
The BBC's commercial activites have been scaled back due to the 2009 James Murdoch lecture, then the various meetings between Mr Osborne , Cameron to get NI on board & as Rupert stated a bit of scratch my back, scratch your back was undertaken & so Mr Camerons bonfire of the quangos mentions OFCOM & the BBC undergos a license fee freeze that was negociated by Mr Hunt himself? State control / collusion to allow a private monopoly to be the major player?
Mr Murdochs dealings with the various governments eager to use his 'empires' media prowess has paid off nicely & if it wasnt for the dogged determintaion of a few individuals , then his ultimate ambition would have been realised & that 'future' would have made us all the poorer & him & his company all the richer. The secret heart of Rupert Murdoch is 'The Sun' . Yesterdays headlines about Roy Hodgson & using his speech impediment gives a clear indication of the very narrow escape weve had from this type of 'journalism' being enacted via the television network.
"...it was hacked by NDS a NEWS CORP campany at the time and that's what destroyed BSB,..." :eek:
Could you explain further how BSB was "destroyed" by NDS??
Rushed through at the last moment, as Sky TV was already up and running, a product that they said no one in the UK wanted, got that bit wrong too!
With millions spents on broadcast deals for Sky platforms for TV radio and associated red button provisions, FOX TV series and movies deals for content on BBC channels, joint ventures like the F1 coverage etc., the compulsory BBC licence fee is surely playing a role in supporting Murdoch's empire.
And if I want to use my TV, I have no choice to opt out.
Choice WILL put the price up, it is so obvious, they need to make a profit, and with a smaller audience, it will need higher subs, anyway it will not affect you, as you cannot watch Sky nor C4 / C5 ITV etc, as you do not live in the UK.
It is by luck, not design that you are able to watch, but I assume contribute nothing
The BBC does not HAVE to pay Sky anything, they could remove themselves from the EPG and remain on Freesat, and accessed on 'Sky' by using add channels. it suits the BBC to appear on the EPG, if didn't, we would not be swamped with umpteen BBC channels on there clogging up the EPG!