2LO 2LO This is London Calling

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

As a reprise of all things BBC and all things Murdoch, and how I saw things after James Murdoch's speech in Edinburgh which was reported by the BBC on August 29th 2009:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8227915.stm

Wherein he said  the scope of the BBC's activities and ambitions was "chilling". I wonder just how bad he thought the BBC must be?

My own take on these matters is here:

johnny9fingers.livejournal.com/165119.html (August 29th 2009)

johnny9fingers.livejournal.com/165585.html (September 2nd 2009)

johnny9fingers.livejournal.com/165992.html (September 30th 2009)

johnny9fingers.livejournal.com/176472.html (November 9th 2009)

johnny9fingers.livejournal.com/179018.html (November 30th 2009)

I quote from these:

 

I want to dissect the Murdoch Empire's Journalistic standards and editorial bias, and the transparency of the process involved and the respective levels of scrutiny in the BBC and the Murdoch Empire in general.

Murdoch's speech resonates in so many ways, especially to free marketeers. But given the fact that the two biggest news media organisations in the world have been going head-to-head for some fifteen years it is unsurprising that James Murdoch should talk so disparagingly about the Murdoch Empire's main competitor.

This is important not because if the BBC goes, in many places the only international News agency left will be Rupert's baby: News_Corporation. You know, Sky, Faux News....the mouthpiece of the marketplace, the Oligarchy, and big business.

The BBC has a board of Governors comprising 'the Great and the Good' in British life.

So now you know the protagonists. On Monday, I hope to speak of the battlefield, the casualties, and the propaganda war. And why I regard the BBC as one of the great achievements of humanity (and I am serious here). And also why I see the BBC's journalistic standards and independent editorial control as being beyond comparison with NewsCorp's. There is one thing in all this: I have some small residual sympathy for NewsCorp for one reason: it subsidises the Times Literary Supplement, which though much debased, is still something almost as wonderful as Radio 3 or Radio 4.

Whether the BBC can be blamed for newspapers going out of business is something I doubt: structural changes in information gathering (the internet) have done for all sorts of industries, including the one in which I work (music).

But for the time being I'm off to Edinburgh to see chums and to catch the last of the festival. I shall return on Monday, refreshed and ready to take up arms against....well, rather than against anything, passionately for the BBC both as a cultural edifice, and as the premier newsgathering organisation in the world. And to be quite candid, I'd trust the BBC board of governors to ensure I get the actual news rather than the board of NewsCorp, or the whims of the members of the Murdoch family.
(August 29th 2009)

From it's Reithian beginnings to its present dominance of the culture of the language of Shakespeare the BBC has always had enemies.

That James Murdoch should ally himself with those, the historical enemies of the BBC, is....understandable. However the list of enemies is as long as the list of enemies of the British state, (and its allies) or perhaps now, one or two more.

It isn't a requirement to be anti-British to hate/dislike/be in competition with the BBC but it certainly helps. After all, commecial television has always had an uneasy relationship with the BBC.

However, when it comes to the dissemination of High Culture and ideas associated with such, the BBC is without equal.

For example BBC_Radio_3
Radio 3 is the world's most significant most significant commissioner of new music*.

And as for BBC_Radio_4, for most Englishfolk who listen to radio, it needs no introduction.

Apart from sponsoring and organising arguably the largest and greatest music festival in the world (The_Proms) and funding some six orchestras plus choirs, the national levy that goes to the BBC pays for a lot more than just TV without the adverts.

Y'see Murdoch is in some ways right: the BBC is a monolith, but if he's setting up NewsCorp as the alternative then he really is on a hiding to nothing. Without the BBC, stations with editorial agenda like FOX would have their say with no major dissent: few others apart from the BBC have the resources and editorial and journalistic integrity to present a story as free of bias. Most private newsgathering organisations are answerable to the whims of their owners. Because the BBC is payed for by public money, established with a Royal Charter, and subject to the scrutiny of its board of governors, Parliament, and ultimately the people, it wouldn't be allowed to get away with some of the egregious (or some would say deliberate) errors FOX's output is strewn with. Republican sex scandal Senators being labeled Dems for example; never mind the network's OxyContin-driven commentary that substitutes for journalism, unnoticed by its audience.
(Sept 2nd 2009)

I think the Tory Party have to distance themselves from Murdoch. The old model of newsgathering and journalism is dead, much like the old model of the Music Biz, or the old model of the retail book trade before Amazon. Recognising this fact, and also recognising the fact that this is the last election which an old-fashioned newspaper Baron will ever be able to influence, does David Cameron really want to emasculate the BBC just to pander to either Roops, or the anointed son James.
(Nov 30th 2009)

Quality (in the sense of excellence and merit) is, to me, more important than any ideological 'correctness' whether political, or economically capitalist.

In the media war between the forces of profit (Murdoch) and the forces of the publicly financed and overseen (the Beeb), the publicly financed has triumphed in those most important factors: excellence and merit. Standards of journalism have never been better than at the Beeb. Breadth, depth, and reach have never been surpassed. In its core statement about nation reaching unto nation, and its principles of educating, informing, and entertaining, the Beeb set out a course which it has followed for many years. It is not beholden to shareholders, but rather public oversight. It also costs a damn sight less than cable.
(Feb 27th 2010)

Given the recent revelations about Roops' minions and newspapers, and the structure of News Corp, and the fact that the Murdoch family trust controls 40% of the voting shares of News corp, but only owns 13% of the total shares: would anyone blame me if I admitted I felt happier with a News and Media organisation that is run on the basis of the BBC, rather than one that is run like News Corp? And if any folk agree with me, would you mind letting the idiots and ideologues in the UK government know that too?

Comments

Understanding State Media

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

If a law were written allowing Rupert Murdoch to have a monopoly on his market, into which competitors were restricted entry and furthermore, the law allowed his companies to confiscate money from the citizenry at large, whether they patronized his services and advertisers or not, then his oranization would be no different from what the BBC or PBS essentially is. The essential difference between market media and state media is that market media has to acquire market share and revenue through service and persuasion. State media, while it may also avail itself of those avenues to revenue and market share, is further allowed to acquire both through force via the political process. Any other supposed difference is nothing more than sentimental religious patriotism. If any private organization or commercial enterprise did what the state does routinely, people would hate it. The difference in perception is merely patriotic indoctrination with the ridiculous idea that the state is "us" or that it represents "us." This is mysticism on the order of the Trinity or the Virgin Birth.

Re: Understanding State Media

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

On the bright side, we in the US can get excellent news from the BBC with no loss of freedom or money. Huzzah!

Re: Understanding State Media

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Our World Service is renowned - throughout the world, in fact.

Fox News, on the other hand was deliberately cooked up to present the GOP of the day in a positive light, something that them goddam liberals were failing to do with their bitchin' about Macarthyism an' all.

Shucks folks, if it weren't for Fox Noos, nobody would know how wunnerful the GOP really was!

Re: Understanding State Media

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I love BBC America, the news shows cover a lot of stories that get no air time on Fox, CNN, etc.

Re: Understanding State Media

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I can understand Fox not wanting to cover some issues, but I thought that CNN was like our ITV - you know, not absolutely first class, but still credible and respectable as a source.

But then , I don't actually watch it...

Re: Understanding State Media

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It was, but hasn't been for a while.

Re: Understanding State Media

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Look, if British people get upset about something, they are quite capable of running riot in the street and making the Government do a U turn sharpish.

Ask Mrs Thatcher about her poll tax, and she will tell you.

The fact is, the BBC may get criticism in the Times, but that is about the repeats, not the fact that it happens to be run on public money.

Re: Understanding State Media

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

PBS, even before acquiring public funding, existed to provide alternate, education-based programming, i.e. programming that the private networks wouldn't touch because they're just not profitable. Hence its incorporation as a non-profit. More than half of its funding comes from private sources (viewer donations, private foundations, etc.) and only ~15% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Individual stations also have a much greater degree of programming freedom than their private counterparts, so it's hardly the state propaganda arm you're trying to portray it as.

Re: Understanding State Media

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

To the extent that it is privately funded and run it is justified. To the extent that it maintains itself as a going concern through receiving money confiscated involuntarilly by the State or has its competition restricted through arbitrary State licensing, then it is not morally legitimate. I never claimed PBS was entirely "evil." On the other hand, to the extent that all broadcast media owe their existence to state licensing, they are beholden to the state and encouraged to portray the point of view of government representatives in a more positive light.

Re: Understanding State Media

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

"I never claimed PBS was entirely 'evil.' " I never said you did.

What you did say was that it acquired market share through force, which is false as it doesn't directly compete with market media as the content it provides is that content which market media would never touch.

"On the other hand, to the extent that all broadcast media owe their existence to state licensing, they are beholden to the state and encouraged to portray the point of view of government representatives in a more positive light."

The broadcast license process in the US involves a lot of checking to make sure that there is a channel available and that the proposed transmitter isn't going to cause RF interference with existing stations. It exists to ensure that new entrants play nice with existing market members, and you're going to have to do a lot more than a bald assertion to establish how that could translate into stations being "beholden to the state" and "encouraged to portray the point of view of government representatives in a more positive light."

Re: Understanding State Media

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

The grant of a license is a charter for monopoly, or more particularly, oligopoly, since more than one firm is granted entry, but entry in general, is still restricted and reserved to certain entities. The broadcast companies are beholden to the State for their license, which can be revoked at the whim of the FCC. If you disagree that this would tend to make the broadcast firms beholden, in actual open reciprocity or at least in terms of the attempt to secure a positive influence upon the agency which has control of their livelihood then we will just have to agree to disagree on that point, as a treatise even attempting to show how the interaction with the state warps the provision of broadcast services is too lengthy a topic to be covered in a debate topic.

Re: Understanding State Media

[oslo.livejournal.com]

The essential difference between market media and state media is that market media has to acquire market share and revenue through service and persuasion.

Which, no doubt, explains why "market media" is preoccupied with superficiality, sensationalism, and stories selected and spun to match its consumers' preconceived (and pre-informed) views. Why do you hate being well-informed?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Wherein he [Murdoch] said the scope of the BBC's activities and ambitions was "chilling". I wonder just how bad he thought the BBC must be?


The BBC's ambitions to me, seems limited to destroying early music on the radio. LOL Just saying :P