The BBC’s Black Ops co-conspirator has surfaced in the shape of the Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger going in for the kill whilst Murdoch is down…but still not out.
It is of course beautifully written…articulate and erudite…however it’s beautifully written tripe with a huge side order of self interested drivel.
The overwhelming case for plurality
This is not just about Rupert Murdoch – allowing media power to be concentrated in the hands of a few multibillionaires will impoverish society
Rusbridger claims this is not just about Murdoch but you’d be hard pushed to find any other target other than another fellow Australian ‘right wing’ business magnate mentioned in the piece.
Here is Rusbridger’s breakdown of the essential questions to ask about any media organisation:
In the UK, there is currently more choice, but the economics of news are undergoing a fundamental revolution, so nothing should be taken for granted. There are other powerful media organisations in the UK, including the BBC. In order to gauge the potential threat, try asking seven critical questions:
a) Does it have strong internal governance?
b) Is it effectively externally regulated?
c) Is it subject to, and does it comply with, the law?
d) Is it subjected to normal scrutiny by press and parliament?
e) Does it overtly try to exert public political influence?
f) Does it privately lobby over regulation or competition issues?
g) Does it actively work to expose the private lives of politicians or other public figures?
On such a scorecard, the BBC would score one out of seven – in the sense that only one of the issues, f), is engaged. News Corp would score seven.
The BBC would only score one out of seven? Seriously? I think you could make the case quite easily that all seven questions apply in a negative way to the BBC to one extent or another.
News Corp has consistently used cross-subsidies to keep down the price of the Times…the Times is still selling at below the cost of production and is 20p cheaper than any of its direct competitors – a fact prominently advertised on its masthead every day.
When Murdoch bought the paper it was on its last legs…he pretty much not only saved the Times but the whole of Fleet Street…or Wapping as it now is.
Rusbridger claims this…‘The Guardian, an independently owned newspaper…’
Let’s remind ourselves of just who pays the bills at the Guardian…and it’s not through sales of the paper which by rights should have folded a long time ago….it is kept afloat by its big business partner….The Guardian has been consistently loss-making. The National Newspaper division of GMG, which also includes The Observer, reported operating losses of £49.9m in 2006, up from £18.6m in 2005.[78] The paper is therefore heavily dependent on cross-subsidisation from profitable companies within the group, including Auto Trader ….not to mention the large advertising revenue it receives from the BBC (a cross subsidy?) for its recruitment adverts.
And look here….The Guardian and its parent groups participate in Project Syndicate, established by George Soros, and intervened in 1995 to save the Mail & Guardian in South Africa, but Guardian Media Group sold the majority of its shares in the Mail & Guardian in 2002.
That’ll be George Soros the multi billionaire financier…..and of course he doesn’t mention the real killer for most news organisations…the BBC website, which is loathed by its commercial competitors who have to earn a living….and the BBC is in its own right a multi-billionaire media empire….something that has conveniently slipped Rusbridger’s notice.
So when Rusbridger says this:
Anything that concentrates power in the hands of fewer and fewer multibillionaire proprietors – whether corporations or individuals – will impoverish our society.
You know he is talking out of his backside….because he is just as much in league with big business and the media moguls running the BBC as any Murdoch or other media baron.
The Guardian of course allows the BBC to say things it can’t say itself.
The link between the Guardian and the BBC should be investigated and broken…certainly BBC recruiting should be done through a wider range of news papers and other platforms…not only stopping the cross subsidy to the Guardian but accessing a wider range of the population with hopefully more broad and tolerant perspective on life.
A “more broad and tolerant perspective on life” can only be forced on the BBC if it is privatised, when it will have to compete for viewers.
What needs urgently investigating is the almost total monopoly the BBC holds on News and Current Affairs on the radio. By their own audience numbers the BBC has a total monopoly on both between six and nine a.m. and again between five and six thirty p.m. with only slightly less between twelve noon and two p.m.
In view of the fact that News and Current Affairs on the radio is never going to be a huge commercial success for a single outlet broadcaster there really is a need for an alternative radio source to offer an alternative to the massive propaganda benefits the BBC derives from having no competition on the radio for the numerous pet projects it it supports either without question or in such a way that those on agreement are sanctified and those who dare to disagree are demonised and abused or dismissed as irrelevant, bigoted or even somehow mentally deranged.
Most of the public know of many of the subjects the BBC supports unconditionally and unwaveringly and it really is long past time that this monopoly was overturned in the public interest.
The “cross subsidy” from the BBC has been known about for years but the scandal continues.
I don’t know how the BBC or the Government can defend this with a straight face.
Alan, top post, good man !
Free the cif 1 !!
From the headline on the ‘article’ reads like a BBC Editor piece, based on the ‘It’s true because I say it is’ presumption.
The comments to it are a treat, too. Not many, but those that are scathing so far have the highest ratings, with the rest mainly knee-jerk cherry vultures being made fools of. And a banning.
The print arm of the BBC indeed.
Here is something not aired by bBC or the Guardian. During cameron’s speech yesterday he said there was about 60,000 families with 4 children or more claiming full benefits. Last week in Parliament MP Fitzpatrick said 900 families with 4000-5000 children in his east London constituency would be moved on due to cuts.
My maths says they are both talking about the same set. Also that the average per constituency of this type is 90. Therefore Fitzpatrick’s constituency is 10 times the average. I expect the seriousness of Fitzpatrick’s statement of what it really implied was lost in his muddled mind.
Since the maternity ward of the London hospital, in Whitechapel, has long been a mass production unit for turning out tiny Bangladeshis, 10 times the national average might possibly be accurate.
Alan
You forgot to add that the Guardian is a massive user of (what the Guardian would deem and the BBC would, in any other circumstances, highlight as) “abusive” tax avoidance techniques as this article by Guido sets out.
Interestingly, Guido also notes that renowned tax “justice” shyster, BBC Newsnight favourite and (as Tim Worstall demonstrates daily) complete financial idiot, Richard Murphy, “approved” of the Guardian’s tax avoidance arrangements. Cosy isn’t it!
The wonderful irony is that, so enfeebled is his rag, that Rusbridger’s self-serving tripe will only be read by a handful of fellow travelers.
When the Telegraph had a media section the BBC would advertise in there as well as advertising in the Guardian. Once the Telegraph closed the section what was the BBC supposed to do? Scatter gunning adverts across all the broadsheets even if they don’t have a media section would seem inefficient and a waste of money. Indeed these days most BBC jobs appear on the bbc.co.uk/jobs website.
The BBC has just about the biggest website in the world. Why can’t it advertise its jobs there ?
The BBC is hasn’t got any common sense thats why.
BBC would advertise in there as well as advertising in the Guardian.
———————————-
percentages ?
No idea.
But a quick search of the Guardian website shows 1 job at the BBC being advertised. While bbc.co.uk/jobs has 44.
Baring in mind the nepotism & cronyism at the BBC why does it bother advertising at all?
Is it possible that The Times investigation of tax avoiders might be getting close to Guardianistas?
David,
The BBC should have stopped all outside advertising and centralised everything in its multimillion pound website. It has no need for the guardian.
Mailman
Looking at the numbers (1 vs 44) I posted above that would seem to be what it’s done.
Seems odd such a piece has only managed 15 comments so far (almost all rather critical of the author’s premise). Is it hidden somewhere on their site?
At least the comments are still fr… open which, on past track record, is a welcome surprise.
News 24: Just accused the coalition of a U turn over the withdrawal of the 3p petrol increase. It is Labour policy put into law that the coalition is not enacting. Typical bBC false information
Only the BBC can take a bit of good news to just about every man and woman in the country and spin it into a negative anti-Tory message! Every day arrives with me hating the BBC a little bit more.