British Media unites against Murdoch
Wikking
Murdoch's "news" monopoly is totally contrary to any hopes the British
public have of getting any form of proper perspective.
British media join forces against Murdoch takeover of BSkyBLetter to
Vince Cable signed by many of UK's leading news providers warns £8bn
deal would damage democratic debate
Analysis: Turning up the heat on Murdoch's News Corporation
Datablog: how powerful would the takeover make Murdoch?
(379)
Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 October 2010 17.32 BST Article
history
Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is proposing a full takeover of
satellite broadcaster BSkyB. Photograph: Hyungwon Kang/Reuters
Fleet Street's highly factionalised newspaper industry today set aside
historic differences to join forces in an unprecedented assault
against the power of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
The companies behind the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail – both
supporters of the Conservatives – united with the owners of the
Guardian and the Labour-backing Daily Mirror to petition Vince Cable,
the business secretary, to consider blocking News Corporation's
proposed £8bn full takeover of the satellite broadcaster BSkyB, which
trades under the name Sky .
Fearful of the combined might of an integrated News Corp-Sky
operation, which would include the Sun, the News of the World, the
Times and book publisher HarperCollins, the complainants said the
"proposed takeover could have serious and far-reaching consequences
for media plurality".
The letter, signed by Murdoch MacLennan, chief executive of Telegraph
Media Group, Sly Bailey, chief executive of Trinity Mirror, owner of
the Daily Mirror, and Andrew Miller, chief executive of Guardian Media
Group, was sent to Cable today. The signatories argue against a
combined Murdoch multimedia empire that would have a turnover of
£7.5bn compared with the BBC's £4.8bn.
They are joined by Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC; Ian
Livingston, chief executive of BT; and David Abraham, chief executive
of Channel 4. Thompson was the first to publicly call for Cable to
review the deal "given the scale of the potential ownership in UK
media", in an interview last week with Charlie Rose on the PBS channel
in the US.
The document is also backed by a memo prepared by the City law firm
Slaughter & May, which sets out legal arguments for the minister to
intervene. It presents a political headache for David Cameron's
coalition government. His Conservative party came to power with the
help of an enthusiastic pre-election endorsement from the Sun –
Britain's bestselling newspaper – and other Murdoch titles, but
Cable's Liberal Democrats enjoyed no such support.
Cameron also employs the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson
as his director of communications. Coulson, whose editorship of the
Sunday tabloid remains mired in controversy about phone hacking, is
close to key figures in News Corporation's newspapers, led by News
International's chief executive and former Sun editor Rebekah Brooks.
The submission is made all the harder to dismiss with organisers
including Lord Black, the well-connected former Tory party director of
communications, who now works at the company behind the Daily
Telegraph; and Paul Dacre, veteran editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail,
whose newspaper is regarded as the authentic voice of middle England.
Over the past week both the Telegraph and the Mail have been critical
of the government's plans to cut child benefit for higher-rate
taxpayers, indicating strained relations between the two
right-of-centre newspapers and Cameron's government.
Although Murdoch is closely identified with Sky, chaired by his son
James, he does not own all of the fast-growing satellite broadcaster.
In June News Corporation proposed an £8bn, 700p-a-share buyout out of
the 61% of the company it does not own.
The deal must first be approved by regulators. News Corporation is
expected to file for regulatory approval with the European commission
on competition grounds, but Cable would then have 25 days to choose to
order an inquiry into the transaction on public interest grounds, as
defined by "media plurality" being compromised.
The business secretary is expected to make his ruling within 10 days
of the European commission being notified, and his decision will have
to be rubber-stamped by Cameron. The media plurality test – which
would be carried out first by the communications regulator Ofcom and
then by ministers – is a loosely-defined concept by which Cable would
have to be convinced that rival newspapers and broadcasters were at
risk of closure or cuts that would damage democratic debate.
What a merger might mean
Matthew Parris and Trevor Kavanagh – columnists for the Times and the
Sun – may be regular guests on Sky News, but critics of the proposed
News Corporation takeover of BSkyB believe the potential for
integration would be far deeper in the event of a full tie-up.
Today, Sky News has an independent editorial structure with channel
editors reporting through the satellite broadcaster and its board –
and despite the close links between Sky and News Corporation, any
sharing of content and journalists has been very limited.
Under a merged company Sky News could be brought more closely into
line with the company's UK newspapers. Although the titles are run
independently, Rupert Murdoch takes a close interest in each, ringing
editors regularly if not daily, and each has a similar political tone
– which saw all four back David Cameron before the election.
News Corporation argues that its planned takeover of Sky is
"essentially financial" and that it is not driven by cost savings or
new business ideas, but Murdoch has taken a keen interest in
developing new digital products for the iPad.
In August News Corporation announced plans to develop an integrated
digital product, with content from across its US portfolio – including
Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. It is hard to
believe that a similar idea is not under active consideration in the
UK, where for a monthly fee iPad owners will get a new multimedia
service – a fusion of print and video beyond the immediate means of
most newspapers.
--
}(:
Conservatives versus progressives: The age-old struggle since time
immemorial in which one side seeks to advance and improve our living
conditions, while others oppose change and new ideas. The progressives
always win in the end because progression is in our nature as we and
our thoughts evolve and adopt new ideas.The US: A nominal democracy
controlled by capitalist extremist plutocrats who own the media and
corporations and manipulate the public like an old fiddle while
pretending the "two party" system works when in fact, under the covers
it is the same animal but with two different masks...
Mel Rowing
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/11/murdoch-bskyb-british-med...
>
> Murdoch's "news" monopoly is totally contrary to any hopes the British
> public have of getting any form of proper perspective.
>
> British media join forces against Murdoch takeover of BSkyBLetter to
> Vince Cable signed by many of UK's leading news providers warns £8bn
> deal would damage democratic debate
I think they'll find that they will have to put together something
considerably more substantial than a letter to Vince Cable.
abelard
wrote:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/11/murdoch-bskyb-british-media-unite
>
>Murdoch's "news" monopoly is totally contrary to any hopes the British
>public have of getting any form of proper perspective.
>
>British media join forces against Murdoch takeover of BSkyBLetter to
>Vince Cable signed by many of UK's leading news providers warns £8bn
>deal would damage democratic debate
what 'debate'
most of the leftist fossil media is bread and circuses and big tits
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True Blue
"Wikking" <Wik.King!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i91ebh$c6i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/11/murdoch-bskyb-british-media-unite
Notwithstanding that the whole lot of 'em - Sky, The Guardian, The Times,
Telegraph, BBC et al.... should be bared to the foul weather of a
deregulated, tech-enabled market, it is laughable that these cry babies
whinge about Murdoch creating a monopoly. Where's the "plurality" of news
coverage on immigration? Europe? Stupid judges? Global warming? They cry
about plurality, but it's the last thing they really want.
Mel Rowing
> Notwithstanding that the whole lot of 'em - Sky, The Guardian, The Times,
> Telegraph, BBC et al.... should be bared to the foul weather of a
> deregulated, tech-enabled market, it is laughable that these cry babies
> whinge about Murdoch creating a monopoly. Where's the "plurality" of news
> coverage on immigration? Europe? Stupid judges? Global warming? They cry
> about plurality, but it's the last thing they really want.
Of course there's plurality and there will continue to be so whether
Murdoch gets his way or not.
Immigration? - It's quite true of course that there is no media
support for concentration camps and mass expulsions as some would want
but anxieties are often expressed across the board especially about
the levels of immigration . The Daily Mail in particular is vigorous
in its exposees of what it sees as abuses of immigration and asylum
and issues of multiculturalism. The Guardian is very much less so.
Europe? - The Telegraph in particular runs a very Euro-sceptic line.
Again the Guardian less so. The others offer a more balanced coverage.
Stupid Judges? - Could it be that the judges are not stupid. It is not
their task to reconcile their rulings with perceived public opinion.
They apply the laws that Parliament lays down and are in fact very
wise in insisting that if politicians wish them to behave in a
particular manner in a given situation, then they suffer the
inconvenience and embarrassment in legislating to that effect.
Global Warming? - Is not the Telegraph the domicile of one Christopher
Booker? Have not the embarrassments suffered by the warmists over
recent months, not been given an adequate airing?
Unlike politicians media companies cannot afford themselves the
comfort of competing for what they see as common ground. If the did
that we would be left with one successor to all the others. They have
rather to appeal to their target audience. So,for instance, there is
a typical Telegraph, Guardian, Times, Mirror, Sun etc. reader. That is
the only way they can coexist.
Perhaps seeking to be all things to all men is one of the roots of the
problems the BBC is experiencing at the moment.
Wikking
defend themselves against a media monopoly and plutocracy being
imposed upon them, then they don't deserve anything else.
Andy
>
> news:i91ebh$c6i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/11/murdoch-bskyb-british-med...
>
> Notwithstanding that the whole lot of 'em - Sky, The Guardian, The Times,
> Telegraph, BBC et al.... should be bared to the foul weather of a
> deregulated, tech-enabled market, it is laughable that these cry babies
> whinge about Murdoch creating a monopoly. Where's the "plurality" of news
> coverage on immigration? Europe? Stupid judges? Global warming? They cry
> about plurality, but it's the last thing they really want.
If Conservatives were ANTI-MONOPOLY instead of ANTI-MINORITY I'd quite
happily be a Tory! These are the two issues that bug me about the
right...
abelard
<think...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>On Oct 12, 5:43 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:47:41 -0400, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/11/murdoch-bskyb-british-med...
>>
>> >Murdoch's "news" monopoly is totally contrary to any hopes the British
>> >public have of getting any form of proper perspective.
>>
>> >British media join forces against Murdoch takeover of BSkyBLetter to
>> >Vince Cable signed by many of UK's leading news providers warns £8bn
>> >deal would damage democratic debate
>>
>> what 'debate'
>> most of the leftist fossil media is bread and circuses and big tits
>
>The Sun chain started the rush to big tits. They are anything but
>leftwing. And it is perhaps one of the few good things it has done,
>fascist repugtard.
nice sig
Ariadne
XXX
You are very dopey, Wikkiing. I don't think anyone failed
to report on the Gilbert and Sullivanish Bathurst-Norman.
SaPeIsMa
news:42e69e1c-18c0-4bd1...@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Which goes to show how ignorant you are
What makes you imagine that conservatives are "anti-MINORITY" (sic) ?
Mel Rowing
> "Andy" <andrewrichardwainwri...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
He doesn't! It's just that the remark had a nice ring!
Mike Jones
> True Blue wrote:
>> "Wikking" <Wik.King!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:i91ebh$c6i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/11/murdoch-bskyb-british-
media-unite
>>
>>
>> Notwithstanding that the whole lot of 'em - Sky, The Guardian, The
>> Times, Telegraph, BBC et al.... should be bared to the foul weather of
>> a deregulated, tech-enabled market, it is laughable that these cry
>> babies whinge about Murdoch creating a monopoly. Where's the
>> "plurality" of news coverage on immigration? Europe? Stupid judges?
>> Global warming? They cry about plurality, but it's the last thing they
>> really want.
>>
>>
> You get the media you deserve. If the UK voters are too supine to defend
> themselves against a media monopoly and plutocracy being imposed upon
> them, then they don't deserve anything else.
While the point stands, coming from and American consumer of the kind of
unified corporate disinfo we Brits consider amusingly dumbed down, there
is a certain degree degree of irony here.
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
SaPeIsMa
news:pan.2010.10...@dasteem.invalid...
Funny though that except for the old mainstream media, there really is NO
"unified corporate disinfo".
And there is a lot of alternate NON "unified corporate disinfo" available to
those who wish to inform themselves.
The difference being that in the UK, a large portion of the "unified
corporate disinfo" is paid for with your taxes..
Ophelia
> True Blue wrote:
> Notwithstanding that the whole lot of 'em - Sky, The Guardian, The
> Times, Telegraph, BBC et al.... should be bared to the foul weather of
> a deregulated, tech-enabled market, it is laughable that these cry
> babies whinge about Murdoch creating a monopoly. Where's the
> "plurality" of news coverage on immigration? Europe? Stupid judges?
> Global warming? They cry about plurality, but it's the last thing they
> really want.
Why Murdoch And The BBC Are On The Same Side
By John Pilger
Ariadne
> By John Pilger
>
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
I 'd be hard put to it to think of two better sources
of disinformation.
Wikking
Sorry, I speak English, could you try that again?
Mike Jones
> "Mike Jones" <lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pan.2010.10...@dasteem.invalid...
>> Responding to Wikking:
>>
>>> True Blue wrote:
>>>> "Wikking" <Wik.King!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:i91ebh$c6i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/11/murdoch-bskyb-british-
>> media-unite
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notwithstanding that the whole lot of 'em - Sky, The Guardian, The
>>>> Times, Telegraph, BBC et al.... should be bared to the foul weather
>>>> of a deregulated, tech-enabled market, it is laughable that these cry
>>>> babies whinge about Murdoch creating a monopoly. Where's the
>>>> "plurality" of news coverage on immigration? Europe? Stupid judges?
>>>> Global warming? They cry about plurality, but it's the last thing
>>>> they really want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You get the media you deserve. If the UK voters are too supine to
>>> defend themselves against a media monopoly and plutocracy being
>>> imposed upon them, then they don't deserve anything else.
>>
>>
>> While the point stands, coming from and American consumer of the kind
>> of unified corporate disinfo we Brits consider amusingly dumbed down,
>> there is a certain degree degree of irony here.
>>
>>
>
> Funny though that except for the old mainstream media, there really is
> NO "unified corporate disinfo".
Wha...?
> And there is a lot of alternate NON "unified corporate disinfo"
> available to those who wish to inform themselves.
Ya thunk?
> The difference being that in the UK, a large portion of the "unified
> corporate disinfo" is paid for with your taxes..
So who pays for the massive conglomo operations currently treated as
"news" in America then? Where does /that/ money come from?
While the BBC is indeed a posher version of "SovNews", America's "Freedom-
News" tends to make it look rational and accurate by comparison.
Its all a pre-digested BS pantomime, but the original comment was on the
idea that somehow the American "Media Break!" puppet show has something
over the "Not-Soviet" BBC et al, that American media is somehow more
accurate and trustworthy.
Curiously enough, America's PSB seems to be /the/ news to watch for info.
Wikking
sheep for decades. It's only now that their standard of living has
dropped dramatically that they are waking up. I expected more spine
from the UK though...
Wikking
Murdoch walks in lockstep with the corporations because he knows that
when his "news" organization shills for them, they pay him by placing
ads. If a large body of current viewers or readers was to boycott his
operations for a month, things would change.
SaPeIsMa
Advertisers
And only idiots imagine that MSM news is anything but entertainment for the
unthinking.
Oh wait, "unthinking" and "idiot" do go hand-in-hand.
> While the BBC is indeed a posher version of "SovNews", America's "Freedom-
> News" tends to make it look rational and accurate by comparison.
>
"Freedom News" ?
Please don't confuse your fantasies with the real world
> Its all a pre-digested BS pantomime, but the original comment was on the
> idea that somehow the American "Media Break!" puppet show has something
> over the "Not-Soviet" BBC et al, that American media is somehow more
> accurate and trustworthy.
>
Again you aren't paying attention
Most Americans, and even outsiders, you being a clear exception, are quite
up to speed on the idea that MSM news reporting is "info-tainment"
>
> Curiously enough, America's PSB seems to be /the/ news to watch for info.
>
And you can even get some good data out of it if you discount the leftist
slant.
Mike Jones
[...]
>> While the point stands, coming from and American consumer of the kind
>> of unified corporate disinfo we Brits consider amusingly dumbed down,
>> there is a certain degree degree of irony here.
>>
> Well, the US public has been manipulated and managed like a herd of
> sheep for decades. It's only now that their standard of living has
> dropped dramatically that they are waking up. I expected more spine from
> the UK though...
We used our spines to re-enforce our stiff upper lips some time back.
Welcome to the club, old chap.
Mike Jones
I'll assume that was a Whoosh, and not deliberate ignorance there.
>
>> Its all a pre-digested BS pantomime, but the original comment was on
>> the idea that somehow the American "Media Break!" puppet show has
>> something over the "Not-Soviet" BBC et al, that American media is
>> somehow more accurate and trustworthy.
>>
>>
> Again you aren't paying attention
Er, we're rapidly approaching Whoosh #2 here...
> Most Americans, and even outsiders, you being a clear exception, are
> quite up to speed on the idea that MSM news reporting is "info-tainment"
...and there it goes.
Put your dick away and get back to the dialogue, huh?
>
>
>> Curiously enough, America's PSB seems to be /the/ news to watch for
>> info.
>>
>>
> And you can even get some good data out of it if you discount the
> leftist slant.
America doesn't have "a leftist slant", it only has "not right wing".
Y'all wouldn't recognise "left" if it bit ya.
Thats how come America has drifted so far to the right, its become the
NeuCommie nightmare it is today for so many, and Russia is now looking
more like how America used to in the 50s.
Funny old world isn't it?
"Round and round we go! Up and down we go!"
Mike Jones
Not going to happen. The psy-ops is too efficient these days.
SaPeIsMa
Then you had better stop "Whooshing" and turn on your neurons, however few
you may have..
Here's a classic example of the level of "news" in "Freedom News"..
"Californian Princess Susana Says She Feels Sorry For
Gambian President For Being Duped Over
Nebraska Admiral Award!! "
This is good enough for one of those food store gossip rags.
>
>>
>>> Its all a pre-digested BS pantomime, but the original comment was on
>>> the idea that somehow the American "Media Break!" puppet show has
>>> something over the "Not-Soviet" BBC et al, that American media is
>>> somehow more accurate and trustworthy.
>>>
>>>
>> Again you aren't paying attention
>
>
> Er, we're rapidly approaching Whoosh #2 here...
>
Repeating yourself like a stupid parrot, just makes you look like a.. stupid
parrot.
>
>> Most Americans, and even outsiders, you being a clear exception, are
>> quite up to speed on the idea that MSM news reporting is "info-tainment"
>
>
> ...and there it goes.
>
> Put your dick away and get back to the dialogue, huh?
>
Funny how some idiots (that's you) seem to think that talking about "dicks"
is more than grade-school-yard level input.
But hey, since you haven't left grade-school intellectually, we should
not be surprised at your level of posts
>
>>
>>
>>> Curiously enough, America's PSB seems to be /the/ news to watch for
>>> info.
>>>
>>>
>> And you can even get some good data out of it if you discount the
>> leftist slant.
>
>
> America doesn't have "a leftist slant", it only has "not right wing".
>
LOL
Better check your "Whoosh" meter, bub
You just broke the dial
> Y'all wouldn't recognize "left" if it bit ya.
>
Sure bub
Whatever ignorati such as you claim
> That's how come America has drifted so far to the right, its become the
> NeuCommie nightmare it is today for so many, and Russia is now looking
> more like how America used to in the 50s.
>
<YAWN>
You have been well programmed
> Funny old world isn't it?
>
And it's made funnier by bigoted ignorant idiots like you.
It's like watching the monkeys at the zoo, and you don't even have to
leave home for the entertainment.
> "Round and round we go! Up and down we go!"
>
Just like the monkeys at the zoo.
Darn good imitation there, you little monkey.
Mike Jones
Didn't take you long to indulge in classic blustering, did it?
Feel free to not bother next time.
Mike Jones
> Do you even know the meaning of the word "bluster" ? The only one doing
> that is you, as is evident by your idiot post above
>
> Feel free to censor yourself
> Doing so permanently would be a very "green" thing to do for all
> concerned
And on, and on, and on, you go... Same old noise, nothing useful.
Feel free to not bother next time.
You will though. Sigh!