Media Moguls/ The Murdochs/ News International/ BSkyB: Why The BBC Is So Important...

miles19740miles19740 Posts: 14,205
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.
«13456711

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Why is everybody blaming the Murdochs for this? Yes it's his business, but I doubt Rupert had any knowledge of the hacking, and I don't think James knew outright (he probably knew enough to work it out though) either. I get that they should be responsible for their companies, and they should've known it was going on and tried to stop it, but why this massive outburst at the Murdochs?
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    Why is everybody blaming the Murdochs for this? Yes it's his business, but I doubt Rupert had any knowledge of the hacking, and I don't think James knew outright (he probably knew enough to work it out though) either. I get that they should be responsible for their companies, and they should've known it was going on and tried to stop it, but why this massive outburst at the Murdochs?

    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.
  • GeorgeSGeorgeS Posts: 20,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    miles19740 wrote: »
    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..

    The BBC ensures left of centre political views are represented. The tv & radio version of the Guardian.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 453
    Forum Member
    GeorgeS wrote: »
    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.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    Eston Bleu wrote: »
    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.
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why is everybody blaming the Murdochs for this? Yes it's his business, but I doubt Rupert had any knowledge of the hacking, and I don't think James knew outright (he probably knew enough to work it out though) either. I get that they should be responsible for their companies, and they should've known it was going on and tried to stop it, but why this massive outburst at the Murdochs?

    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.
  • foxlafoxla Posts: 1,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zz9 wrote: »
    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
  • miles19740miles19740 Posts: 14,205
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    GeorgeS wrote: »
    The BBC ensures left of centre political views are represented. The tv & radio version of the Guardian.

    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.
  • mersey70mersey70 Posts: 5,049
    Forum Member
    miles19740 wrote: »
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    zz9 wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, I've read the Sun before....
    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.?
  • C14EC14E Posts: 32,165
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zz9 wrote: »
    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?

    In a company with $30 BILLION turnover ($90m every day!), I'd be amazed if executives couldn't write six figure cheques.
  • Dansky+HDDansky+HD Posts: 9,806
    Forum Member
    miles19740 wrote: »
    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.


    I disagree 100%
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    foxla wrote: »
    Quite a few Newspapers do that though, (and not only the NOTW), and then months down the line they have to backtrack

    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.
  • zz9zz9 Posts: 10,767
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    C14E wrote: »
    In a company with $30 BILLION turnover ($90m every day!), I'd be amazed if executives couldn't write six figure cheques.

    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.
  • wakeywakey Posts: 3,073
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why is everybody blaming the Murdochs for this? Yes it's his business, but I doubt Rupert had any knowledge of the hacking, and I don't think James knew outright (he probably knew enough to work it out though) either. I get that they should be responsible for their companies, and they should've known it was going on and tried to stop it, but why this massive outburst at the Murdochs?

    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.
  • wakeywakey Posts: 3,073
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    foxla wrote: »
    Quite a few Newspapers do that though, (and not only the NOTW), and then months down the line they have to backtrack

    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
  • wakeywakey Posts: 3,073
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, I've read the Sun before....
    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.?

    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
  • FRANKIE RAYFRANKIE RAY Posts: 242
    Forum Member
    miles19740 wrote: »
    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
    .
    Totally Agree
    Business puts profit first and quality of service / it's customers second which is bad for all concerned.
    Disagree ,most dont especially small companies that have not become corrupt.
    The alleged activities of the Murdochs and their companies makes me realise how important the BBC is
    Agree

    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
    Very excessive spending on public services and lack of regulation on the Banks is the direct cause of our very sharp economic decline,
    I am afraid we as a economy are currently sinking into a abyss.

    (reducing News International's influence in the UK in the process) is the only way to go...in my view.
    Also include other companies who have a business model of manipulating markets ,such as Arqiva ,Southern Cross(same hedge fund investors, or was) , utilities ,energy,ect,ect.

    The last labour government and this totally useless lot have allowed large market manipulating companies to suck up to them and seek favours from politicians that has resulted in these companies being allowed to fleece the rest of us.

    The CEOs of these companies need locking up and not put out to grass on huge pensions paid for by the tax payer ,such as Fred Goodwin .

    The activities of these leaders of manipulating companies if not corrupt are morally corrupt and this shouldn’t be allowed to continue.

    Our government needs to get a grip and all the career politicians booted out and we need politicians who are skilled ,honest and represent all of us , not their crony's ,such as Murdoch

    These latest revelations about Jeremy Hunt makes me very angry with politicians ,especially after many were caught fiddling their expenses.

    Our Prime minister I believe also was in the pocket of News Corp.
    Call me Dave while spouting platitudes that we are all in this together still has his snout in the trough with his mortgage payments for his constituency home a short distance from London .

    If not corrupt he is totally out of touch with what the rest of us are suffering with his mismanagement of the economy.

    The last labour government were probably the most incompetent in the history of the UK , what is so distressing is the conservatives are a close second.

    Vince cable is one of the few politicians I have any respect for at the moment and I never thought I would ever admire a Liberal politician, but even with him as a Liberal I could never bring myself to vote Liberal.

    There is a huge vacuum of politicians with integrity ,honesty and competence.

    Very worrying!
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Some people try to make out that the Times is free from Murdoch corruption and control. There is an article here which shows how NI/News Corps used it's ownership of the Times to try and get influence over Vince Cable and gain full ownership of the Times.
  • FRANKIE RAYFRANKIE RAY Posts: 242
    Forum Member
    Transient1 wrote: »
    Some people try to make out that the Times is free from Murdoch corruption and control. There is an article here which shows how NI/News Corps used it's ownership of the Times to try and get influence over Vince Cable and gain full ownership of the Times.

    I do not thinks Vince cable took Murdochs shilling, this is why I respect him.
  • peter05peter05 Posts: 3,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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
  • ShaunWShaunW Posts: 2,356
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    peter05 wrote: »
    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
    He was punished for being a prat and opening his mouth to the wrong people at the wrong time.
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ShaunW wrote: »
    He was punished for being a prat and opening his mouth to the wrong people at the wrong time.

    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.
  • mersey70mersey70 Posts: 5,049
    Forum Member
    Transient1 wrote: »
    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 :confused:
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mersey70 wrote: »
    Cable did stay in office following his remarks :confused:

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.