Sunday, August 02, 2009
Sunday Times should come clean on Beeb attack
The Sunday Times fails to declare an interest in its depressing report that the Observer is threatened with closure on the back of Guardian Media Group’s growing operating loss of £36.8 million. This is the paper’s plausible enough spin on GMG’s statement on Friday that it will be unable to carry the current rate of losses beyond 2011. The ST also fails to declare the parent Murdoch group including Sky’s self-interest in its separate story claiming that the Conservatives in power would sell off BBC Radio 1, then wrapping the two points in a wider editorial assault on the BBC for becoming in effect “ a newspaper publisher.” As it sheds crocodile tears for the Observer, the editorial hints at but fails to confirm Murdoch plans, still unconfirmed, to start charging for its own on line product.
At the moment most newspapers give away their content online for free. But this cannot continue and soon all of them will have to charge for it in some form. When that happens, the BBC “newspaper”, which of course will remain free, will gain a huge advantage. The Observer, the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper, is under threat of closure. This underlines the crisis facing the industry. The BBC cannot be allowed to push it over the edge. Fewer newspapers would be bad for democracy
.
What lord of nature decreed that when the web started to develop it should become the exclusive preserve of newspapers? Now you know why News International has chosen this moment to turn its guns again on the Beeb. Tomorrow’s media Guardian should be a must-read.
Brian Walker @ 09:09 AM
That would be the £3.5bn a year funded BBC?
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 11:16 AMYes. Sorry if you confused it with the now defunct Belfast Bottling Company.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 11:26 AMWhich BBC did you think Brian Walker was on about, Vance?
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 11:29 AMIt’s heartwarming to see censorship on display once again on this site.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 11:39 AMWhy all this squealing about the funding of the BBC?
Newspapers are also funded:
a)by the price you pay for the newspaper, a cost which has far exceeded inflation in the past 20 years;
and b) by advertising revenue. So every time you see an ad for Tesco, Cadburys, or dog food in the paper, you’re paying for the cost of that advertising every time you buy the product. Same goes for UTV/ITV - you think UTV is free? - think again, mate.Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 12:06 PMBrian
Thanks for that clarification. Did the Belfast Bottling Company demand you pay for their product or face criminal proceedings? If so, I am glad they are out of business. Further, tomorrow’s Media Guardian is never a must read but often a best avoid.
Eddie,
Which newspaper demands you pay for their product? I refer you to biased bbc for further elucidation.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 01:25 PMIn the mid 80s newspaper publishers were claiming that the end of their world was nigh owing to teletext becoming widely available and that they’d never survive.
A quarter of a century later they’re still here and still moaning, it’s just about different technology.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 02:56 PMTo David Vance - I really don’t know what your point is. All newspapers demand they pay for their product.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 03:03 PMsorry…demand YOU pay for their product
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 03:05 PMEddie,
If I don’t want to BUY a newspaper, say the Guardian for example, I do not have to. Got it? If I have a TV, I must pay the TV tax to the BBC. It’s a Statist anachronism and it must go.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 03:10 PMVance
But you don’t have to have a tv. And if you didn’t the BBC supplies tons of free stuff - like their news website, said to be one of the best in the wordl, plus man other websites on different topics.Oh, and there’s also Radio Ulster, the UK’s most-listened to local or regional radio station, plus five national radio networks, and if you have DAB radio - BBC Radio 6 and Radio 7 - all free!
Plus you can watch BBC free via your computer.
Seems to me you have got it in for the BBC. Did they nuck your gutties at some stage, mister?
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 03:32 PMWhat you are really saying, Mr Vance, is that if you want a newspaper, you have got to pay for it. And if you want to view television, you have got to pay for it. (Where that television money goes is a matter for Parliament)
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 03:35 PMBut you don’t have to have a tv.
What if I want to watch Sky 24 hours per day but never listen/watch BBC propaganda? Why should I pay the TV licence fee?
Plus you can watch BBC free via your computer.
If it’s visual stuff then you need a licence for that also.
I suspect that part of my licence fee is going towards your wages, Eddie.
P.S. Is the contributor by the name of Mark Simpson the BBC Ireland correspondent?
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 05:29 PMWhilst not always taking everything the BBC says as hard fact, I do know that those of us who can receive it would be poorer by far (and I mean this culturally) were we to lose it.
Vivid Dance - imagine a broadcasting world populated by Sky/Virgin/Disney, it would be horrendous and soul destroying.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 05:40 PMVivid Dance.
Seeing as you ask, no, I am not the BBC Ireland correspondent. More than one Mark Simpson in the world.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 05:52 PMMore than one Mark Simpson in the world.
No way. You’re fucking joking me, right? And on a thread about the BBC too, eh? What a coincidence.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 06:06 PMWith regard to the Observer holding being the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper, it is the norm elsewhere as it is in the UK and Ireland for there to be specific Sunday titles?
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 06:43 PMWith regard to the Observer being the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper, it is the norm elsewhere for there to be specific Sunday titles?
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 06:44 PMEddie,
What you are avoiding saying is that ONLY the BBC requires a mandatory £3.5bn tax to provide us with a left wing echo chamber.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 07:11 PM@Vivid Dance.
No, definately not me. Neither is this me:
despite me also being gay and posting in the thread about the Pride parade. Life’s full of coincidences, isn’t it?
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 08:20 PMYeah I’m sick of those politburo bulletins from that Trotskyite gang of four Peinaar, Peston, Robinson and Paxman. Trots to a man, as long as that man is Dacre.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 08:27 PMTrolls, back off. This is a serious site for people who want to talk about serious matters.
Here’s the problem with abolishing the licence fee: what would take it’s place? Commercial radio is dying on its feet. Even Simon Heffer calculates R3 and R4 are worth the licence fee alone.
HBO is one of the great produce of US based subscription tv. It would be great to think that the British could make stuff of that quality, but there is no way the market is big enough.
Murdoch can spin out some good quality programmes, but again that’s being donea commercial monopoly that Murdoch protects with the help (or acquiesce) of his friends in government.
At least we know the gross terms of the BBC’s monopoly. And it’s massive leadership over both the Guardian and Murdoch arises out of its massive resources, early investment and reach of the brand.
Murdoch can make money out of WSJ online, but he’s on a hiding to nothing with charging for his Times content. It will simply drop out of the debate, and become less relevant.
It’s what the NYT tried to do, and it’s heading south at a rate of knots. The truth is the old model doesn’t work. As Brian notes:
“What lord of nature decreed that when the web started to develop it should become the exclusive preserve of newspapers?”
That’s going to have drastic consequences for both the Guardian and Times. Mr Murdoch would be better attending to the broken fences on his own farm than trying to nobble his neighbours who’ve been keeping them in (reasonably) good order.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 09:05 PMTo Mr Vance
Ah! At No 19 above, you reveal that your real objection to the BBC is that (in your view) the BBC is left-wing. It seemed originally that your objection was against having to pay for a tv licence for the BBC, per se. Why change the goal posts during a discussion?Answer this question: do you want to watch the BBC for free?
To Vivid Dance - no I do not earn any money from the BBC. I just happens to think, despite all its imperfections, that the BBC is bloody good value for money. Gawd help us if we were left with the increasingly news and current affiars-free ITV and the wonderful (and expensive) Sky channels at £40 per month.
Ask yourselves this question: who would benefit from the BBC being abolished? AND why do you think the newspapers (especially Mister Murdoch’s) target the BBC for criticism.
Huh? Aw. c’mon now.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 09:08 PMSorry Mick, I wasn’t trolling, I’m just sick of the ad nauseum parroting of the £3.5bn tax line. It’s a schtick to beat the Beeb with by the ‘left-wing echo chamber’ mob.
One way or another we can still trust the Beeb more so than we can most other outlets, whether in news or elsewhere in our media diet.
Our media ecology is changing, but I know that neither the big or small media models that are on the table are going to work in the short/ medium term as both are predicated on revenue streams they can’t achieve and which therefore won’t support their new projected potential audiences.
For cohesive natonal media, which news relies upon at the highest level, I think the licence fee works perfectly.
I’d rather have the Beeb than bloggers, present company excluded of course, as it is easier to track and delivered at times that are convenient for me. It’s well worth mine and the GLW’s cash.
The key to this thread is Murdoch’s belief in still being able to bully the market and his competitors - showing just how antiquated his thinking is.
Ironically for a free marketeer, he’s he has no notion of the complexion of the new market that has emerged and the Beeb should not be uppermost in his thinking.Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 09:43 PMOne way or another we can still trust the Beeb more so than we can most other outlets, whether in news or elsewhere in our media diet.
Yes, I for one found it touching when Barbara Plett started crying at Arafat’s funeral. I loved the recent memo where the BBC exec stated that BBC programming had a duty to remain true to left of centre values. I loved it when Nick Robinson wrote a blog about how David Cameron speaks on top of a soapbox, visited Norwich North six times during the recent by-election campaign there (the PM visit a total of zero times) and is called ‘Dave’ the on the same day that it was revealed that government debt had reached £799bn. I love Orla Guerin’s impartiality, the same goes for Justin Webb’s coverage of the 2008 US Presidential election. I loved watching Harriet Harperson tell Dimblebore, on a recent episode of Question Time, to ensure that Ian Duncan Smith stopped talking. I loved the way Emily Maitless recently described the election of two MEP as a dark day for the UK. And that’s just off the top of my head. Don’t get me started on BBC Northern Ireland’s attitude in relation to the GAA.
It warms my heart when I’m then demanded to pay an expensive licence or else I will face court action - a fee that ensures that when Jonathan Ross is found out as the vacuous, offensive piece of shit that he is, the resulting fine imposed comes out of my pocket. Puts a smile of my face, let me tell you.
I have a friend working for the BBC, doing pretty menial tasks at the minute, in London and the Home Counties. Oh the stories I could tell about exactly how your hard-earned money is spent on a more trivial basis! It would turn your stomach.
Posted by on Aug 02, 2009 @ 10:20 PM
