James Murdoch's 'hard-hitting' MacTaggert lecture speech at this year's MediaGuardian Edinburgh International TV Festival took aim at the 'twin terrors' of the BBC and Ofcom, angrily denouncing the latter's over-regulation of the media market in the UK, as well as Auntie's "chilling" hold on the media landscape.
This was an entirely predictable diatribe given that Murdoch's News Corporation empire has had their advertising revenue decreased to the point where its patriarch has mooted the idea of paying for news. Meanwhile, the BBC's reliable income of the licence fee has meant that the corporation can continue to operate in such a way that, nothing happened 'when they were found to have overspent by a huge amount a year ago, a sackable offence in a commercial company', according to one leading independent producer.
Whilst perhaps a little generalised, the point remains: how can a commercial company compete with a public behemoth such as the BBC? The unique nature of the British broadcasting system was denounced by Murdoch as 'the Addams family of world media,' citing an 'Orwellian' state control and 'authoritarian' nature. Few would doubt that it skews the market when it comes to news, however such a perspective misses the point.
Murdoch’s position takes as its foundation the idea that news should be run to make a profit, dismissing public service broadcasting as ‘no more than the parading of the prejudices and interests of the like-minded people who currently control British television.’ Free market fundamentalism suggests that commercialisation of the broadcasting industry in the UK would lead to innovation, advancement and greater value for the customer. News is NOT a commodity however. News is a service, valued differently by each consumer, and one that occupies a unique position in a democratic civil society.
This is an idea central in Nick Davies' Flat Earth News.
--------------------------------------------
A separate but related point regards the real reason for Murdoch’s scathing attack. News International recently announced their plans to begin charging users for online content. As Emily Bell pointed out, such demands would need to alter the behaviour of hundreds of millions of people. It underlines the increasing importance of an issue that lies at the heart of the internet: should information be free?
According to MediaGuardian, the Murdochs share a belief that private enterprise should be allowed to go about its business ‘unfettered by regulation'. They come from a school of thought which has at its heart the notion that news, as any other industry, should be run based on 'more tangible goals, such as profits'. They argue that 'the [BBC] news operation is creating enormous problems for the independent news business and it has to be dealt with'. Does the BBC really skew web based news operations though by offering services for free where others do not?
The BBC called it 'the gravest threat to the way we watch now', and certainly it would lead us down a road in which those who can least afford news are cut off from access to information just when they might need it most. Even assuming that the BBC did eventually charge for access to content, how can it combat philanthropic ventures like the Huffington Post?
Rupert Murdoch's outlining of his ideas a year early ws designed so they can move the whole market in the direction they want, whereas normally he would just change things and then expect others to follow suit. Instead of leading the market by pioneering new technology, he is asking the market to move in such a way that would allow News Corp to retain its position as market leader. As news sheds its skin and find themselves in need of redefinition in a post-recession landscape, the Murdoch's demands, whilst chiming with the views of many at the Festival, still look like the tantrums of those unwilling to admit that they cannot hold journalism to ransom any longer.
---------------------------------------------
Much as it disappoints the Murdochs to have a regulated market, today the Guardian reported that energy companies in the UK are 'failing to pass on the beneifts of plunging wholesale prices to recession-hit customers.' Furthermore, this harks back to complaints not long ago of banks taking the tax-payer funded bailouts provided by the British government, and hoarding them to inflate their shre prices and stabilise their accounts instead of using them to expand loans for small business looking to tread water.
The idea that markets should, as mentioned above, be 'unfettered by regulation' is ludicrous. The BBC, whilst not without its own flaws, is a public institution that should be defended. As Nick Davies explains, 'there are still some safe havens we may be able to protect. Some of them are inside the BBC whose public funding gives it some protection against commercialisation. And certainly there is a battle worth fighting to defend the BBC against the relentless pressure from Rupert Murdoch to privatise it and reduce it to the ghetto status of public broadcasting in the United States.'
Really though, it’s difficult to believe that the Beeb will, in the near future at least, remain anything other than a publicly funded entity. As James Robinson and Maggie Brown relate, it seems highly implausible that David Cameron would act against the Corporation when there are so many other pressing matters to attend to.
---------------------------------------------
If though these were indeed the Tory leader's plans, then one could put them into a context of further mooted privatisation of the NHS, which itself touched a public nerve against the backdrop of criticism in the US. The UK has a great and proud history of public institutions. This is something that should not be given up so easily to the whims of those who wish to commercialise our country to the point of asphyxiating social vibrance and the idea that we all deserve equality – be it in healthcare or in access to information as to what is going on in the world.
Read more
This was an entirely predictable diatribe given that Murdoch's News Corporation empire has had their advertising revenue decreased to the point where its patriarch has mooted the idea of paying for news. Meanwhile, the BBC's reliable income of the licence fee has meant that the corporation can continue to operate in such a way that, nothing happened 'when they were found to have overspent by a huge amount a year ago, a sackable offence in a commercial company', according to one leading independent producer.
Whilst perhaps a little generalised, the point remains: how can a commercial company compete with a public behemoth such as the BBC? The unique nature of the British broadcasting system was denounced by Murdoch as 'the Addams family of world media,' citing an 'Orwellian' state control and 'authoritarian' nature. Few would doubt that it skews the market when it comes to news, however such a perspective misses the point.
Murdoch’s position takes as its foundation the idea that news should be run to make a profit, dismissing public service broadcasting as ‘no more than the parading of the prejudices and interests of the like-minded people who currently control British television.’ Free market fundamentalism suggests that commercialisation of the broadcasting industry in the UK would lead to innovation, advancement and greater value for the customer. News is NOT a commodity however. News is a service, valued differently by each consumer, and one that occupies a unique position in a democratic civil society.
This is an idea central in Nick Davies' Flat Earth News.
--------------------------------------------
A separate but related point regards the real reason for Murdoch’s scathing attack. News International recently announced their plans to begin charging users for online content. As Emily Bell pointed out, such demands would need to alter the behaviour of hundreds of millions of people. It underlines the increasing importance of an issue that lies at the heart of the internet: should information be free?
According to MediaGuardian, the Murdochs share a belief that private enterprise should be allowed to go about its business ‘unfettered by regulation'. They come from a school of thought which has at its heart the notion that news, as any other industry, should be run based on 'more tangible goals, such as profits'. They argue that 'the [BBC] news operation is creating enormous problems for the independent news business and it has to be dealt with'. Does the BBC really skew web based news operations though by offering services for free where others do not?
The BBC called it 'the gravest threat to the way we watch now', and certainly it would lead us down a road in which those who can least afford news are cut off from access to information just when they might need it most. Even assuming that the BBC did eventually charge for access to content, how can it combat philanthropic ventures like the Huffington Post?
Rupert Murdoch's outlining of his ideas a year early ws designed so they can move the whole market in the direction they want, whereas normally he would just change things and then expect others to follow suit. Instead of leading the market by pioneering new technology, he is asking the market to move in such a way that would allow News Corp to retain its position as market leader. As news sheds its skin and find themselves in need of redefinition in a post-recession landscape, the Murdoch's demands, whilst chiming with the views of many at the Festival, still look like the tantrums of those unwilling to admit that they cannot hold journalism to ransom any longer.
---------------------------------------------
Much as it disappoints the Murdochs to have a regulated market, today the Guardian reported that energy companies in the UK are 'failing to pass on the beneifts of plunging wholesale prices to recession-hit customers.' Furthermore, this harks back to complaints not long ago of banks taking the tax-payer funded bailouts provided by the British government, and hoarding them to inflate their shre prices and stabilise their accounts instead of using them to expand loans for small business looking to tread water.
The idea that markets should, as mentioned above, be 'unfettered by regulation' is ludicrous. The BBC, whilst not without its own flaws, is a public institution that should be defended. As Nick Davies explains, 'there are still some safe havens we may be able to protect. Some of them are inside the BBC whose public funding gives it some protection against commercialisation. And certainly there is a battle worth fighting to defend the BBC against the relentless pressure from Rupert Murdoch to privatise it and reduce it to the ghetto status of public broadcasting in the United States.'
Really though, it’s difficult to believe that the Beeb will, in the near future at least, remain anything other than a publicly funded entity. As James Robinson and Maggie Brown relate, it seems highly implausible that David Cameron would act against the Corporation when there are so many other pressing matters to attend to.
---------------------------------------------
If though these were indeed the Tory leader's plans, then one could put them into a context of further mooted privatisation of the NHS, which itself touched a public nerve against the backdrop of criticism in the US. The UK has a great and proud history of public institutions. This is something that should not be given up so easily to the whims of those who wish to commercialise our country to the point of asphyxiating social vibrance and the idea that we all deserve equality – be it in healthcare or in access to information as to what is going on in the world.
