Is it possible, do you think, that the BBC could engage in the malicious damage of a rival in the same way that they allege Murdoch was doing? Biased BBC contributor Alan asks..
“Biased BBC has previously posted a look at Panorama’s investigation into ITV’s ‘Ondigita’ demise and whether Murdoch had anything to do with it. ‘Spiked’ magazine has taken a long look at this subject also and come up with yet more evidence that the BBC were at best merely inaccurate, at worst attempting to create a story that would be as damaging as possible to its biggest rival. (In other words doing exactly what they claimed Murdoch was doing…using the BBC’s power and influence to smash a commercial rival)
The article examines whether anything Murdoch did ‘killed off’ Ondigital and whether his company was emgaged in similar activities in Australia. The answer to both seems to be a definite no….and that’s from people working in the companies Murdoch was supposed to have attacked……
Panorama and the toxic BBC culture
‘The editor of the Weekend Australian says the BBC’s claim that News Corp encouraged piracy against competitors is pure conspiracy theory.
The blighters at NDS had apparently been encouraging piracy against Australian pay-TV operation Austar, with the aim of driving down its value so that its rival, Foxtel, 25 per cent owned by News Corporation, could pick it up for a song.
The man at the helm of Austar at the time of the alleged skullduggery, CEO John Porter, said Chenoweth’s story was ‘so farcical that I really don’t think it is worthy of my time’.
He said he had seen no evidence whatsoever that News Corporation had promoted pay-TV piracy to damage his business. ‘Quite to the contrary’, he told ABC Radio. ‘We’ve worked very closely through the years with both Foxtel and heavily supported by News Corp, and I’m aware that News Corp has worked globally to try to solve the piracy issue.’ ‘
If Panorama’s story is proven pure hogwash, by mistake or design, will the BBC Trust be applying the whitewash or will there be a genuine investigation and suitably robust reaction should the Panorama team be found to have concocted a pack of lies? “
The BBC Trust? Don’t make me laugh, they are totally biased towards the BBC. They should have their regulation remit taken from them and handed to OFCOM, there is no good reason that only the BBC can handle all complaints in house.
“BBC” and “Trust” don’t sit well together, do they?
It’s what posh folk call an oxymoron:
like Australian culture
or English Rugby
The charge against Murdoch is that hackers were hired to create and distribute hacked cards or codes to rival systems. This is an allegation of a criminal conspiracy.
If this allegation is not true, then the BBC have engaged in a criminal plot to cause harm to reputation and loss of revenue through libel. Causing harm or loss is a crime under common law.
Either way, somebody’s head should roll.
I believe Murdoch’s lawyers asked the BBC to stop the showing, saying it made false allegations.
Failure to stop after such a warning – and then repeating the programme – would probably compound the damages if Murdoch sues.
The whole gambit by the Guardian and the BBC is to show News International and Murdoch to be “not fit and proper persons” to hold the Sky TV licence. In effect – to force the closure or sale of Sky TV.
Or simply to prevent him from launching a Fox News UK?
Launching Fox News UK has to be the ultimate nightmare of the British political classes. A few months ago I though Mr Murdoch was to old and didn’t have any fight left in him. But seeing him recently and the way his papers are (quire rightly) exposing Government corruption and incompetence I suspect there is plenty of fight left in the old boy yet.
Nick Cater, who wrote that ‘Spiked’ article, is one of Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper editors in Australia. The BBC and its defenders will doubtless point out that he’s hardly a disinterested party.
Still, if he’s right, his boss could take the BBC to the cleaners over this. The BBC’s hostile intent towards SKY has been clear for ages.
Nick Cater is indeed an employee of “News Limited” [Chairman: Rupert Murdoch] [Director: Lachlan Murdoch]. Yet for some reason “useful idiot” David Vance seems to think that’s not at all relevant.
Cater’s article is little more than an increasingly hysterical series of ad-homs against everyone who took part in the Panorama investigation.
But not once, not a single time does Carter say that the allegations are untrue…
You obviously have not read the article.
It provides a detailed refutation of the lies the Panorama prohgramme was spinning – and of course it criticises the liars – as liars ? That is – what you call “ad hom” is based on denial of specific lies. And you will find that the defi nition of “ad hominem” is exactly NOT as you have tried to use it – ad hom argument means avoiding the substance of the issues.
Please try harder.
‘will the BBC Trust be applying the whitewash or will there be a genuine investigation and suitably robust reaction’
Sorry, just give me a moment to wipe the tear from my eye.
I am pretty sure that, if tasked, after a full internal investigation (you know, one like others have and Newsnight mocks as corrupt) and weighing all the evidence, the BBC Trust will, again, be entirely comfortable that the BBC ‘got it about right’.
If the BBC hate Rupert, then I`m with near enough anything he`s doing…that`s how much I despise the BBCs sly bias.
Still need to know how the BBC got the leaked budget amidst other reports and enquiries before the rest of the media pack too.
Arrange these words into a well-known phrase or saying:
People – shouldn’t – glasshouses – in – throw – stones – live – who
The problem for the BBC is that too many people know where too many bodies are hidden.
“Thousands of redundancies later, and the BBC is still a bloated bureaucracy”
By Steve Doughty
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2131684/Thousands-redundancies-later-BBC-bloated-bureaucracy.html#ixzz1sQWwmuYK