The gloves are now off...
Duncan
BBC launches public attack on Murdoch 'imperialism'
By Vincent Graff, Media and Culture Editor
25 August 2003
The controller of BBC1 launched an unprecedented attack on Rupert Murdoch
yesterday, calling the media billionaire a "capital imperialist" who wants
to destabilise the corporation because he "is against everything the BBC
stands for".
Lorraine Heggessey said Mr Murdoch's continued attacks on the BBC stemmed
from a dislike of the public sector. But he did not understand that the
British people "have a National Health Service, a public education system"
and trust organisations that are there for the benefit of society and not
driven by profit.
Her controversial comments, in an interview with The Independent, are
believed to be the first time a senior BBC executive has publicly attacked
the motives of the media tycoon. They follow an intensification of anti-BBC
rhetoric from Mr Murdoch's side.
The BBC has been alarmed by the increasingly close relationship between the
Government and Mr Murdoch's British newspapers, at a time when the BBC's
relationship with New Labour is strained as never before. The frostiness of
the relationship has raised speculation that the Government will consider
abolishing the licence fee in its forthcoming review of the BBC's charter.
Ms Heggessey's remarks will cheer supporters of the corporation who fear the
BBC has kept quiet for too long in the face of attack from Mr Murdoch and
his most senior employees.
Her comments come in the wake of a speech to the country's senior
broadcasting executives by Tony Ball, chief executive of British Sky
Broadcasting, in which Mr Murdoch's News Corporation is the major
shareholder.
Mr Ball told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week that
the BBC ought to be forced to sell its most successful programmes, such as
EastEnders, Casualty and Have I Got News For You to its commercial rivals,
who would screen all future episodes instead. The money raised by such sales
should then be ploughed into experimental programming, he said.
Executives at the BBC and elsewhere see the plan as a Murdoch-inspired
attempt to cripple the corporation by depriving it of its most popular
shows - and the large audiences that go with them.
Mr Ball told a questioner at the festival that it "would not be such a
disaster" if the BBC were eventually to become a marginal broadcaster.
But Ms Heggessey retorted: "It wouldn't be such a disaster for Sky because
he hopes that the less successful we become, the more people will subscribe
to Sky. It would be a disaster for the BBC."
Supporters of the BBC say Mr Ball's proposal, intended to influence the
Government's hand as it considers the renewal of the BBC's charter, follows
relentlessly negative reports in Mr Murdoch's British newspapers about the
BBC's conduct in the David Kelly affair. The Times and The Sun, in
particular, have come under attack for what is perceived as anti-BBC bias.
"I would suspect that everybody who works for Rupert Murdoch knows what he
expects of them and they know that if they don't deliver they will be booted
out," said Ms Heggessey. Newspaper readers "know when they are being peddled
a line," she added.
In his speech, Mr Ball proposed two further restrictions to be placed on the
BBC, which he argued would prevent the corporation it from straying too far
into territory he regards as the sole domain of commercial broadcasters such
as his own.
The BBC should be banned from buying any foreign-made material, he said.
This would prevent the BBC from pushing up the price of American sitcoms,
Hollywood movies and Australian soap operas, the staples of many commercial
channels. "I really cannot see why public money is being diverted to those
poor struggling Hollywood studios," he said.
Ms Heggessey said BBC1 did not run any overseas-originated programmes during
peak time but "the audience expects us to run movies and we do".
Nick Humphries
>Mr Ball told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week that
>the BBC ought to be forced to sell its most successful programmes, such as
>EastEnders, Casualty and Have I Got News For You to its commercial rivals,
>who would screen all future episodes instead. The money raised by such sales
>should then be ploughed into experimental programming, he said.
Good idea! Let's force broadcasters to not benefit from the fruits of their
labours!
If you want experimental programming, you have Channel 4 and BBC2.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Nick Humphries -- ni...@egyptus.co.uk -- http://www.egyptus.co.uk |
| ZX Spectrum stuff * Your Sinclair archive * Time-lapse weather MPEGs |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mick
Nick Humphries wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:11:42 GMT, "Duncan" <this...@valid.address>
wrote:
>
>> Mr Ball told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week
that
>> the BBC ought to be forced to sell its most successful programmes, such
as
>> EastEnders, Casualty and Have I Got News For You to its commercial
rivals,
>> who would screen all future episodes instead. The money raised by such
>> sales should then be ploughed into experimental programming, he said.
>
> Good idea! Let's force broadcasters to not benefit from the fruits of
their
> labours!
Sky has been on the go for about 20 years now so I would have thought that
would be more than enough time for them to produce a classic or two
themselves. I can`t think of any though.
mick
NO LOGO
Pot calling the Kettle Black... It's one Imperialistic Dictatorship
Bundle-racket versus another.
Both Corporations have lots of simillarities:
- Reliance on a "bundle" fee for a package of services with little choice
whether to accept or reject. Don't pay the BBC, and TVLA Getaspo annoy you
every 4 weeks. Don't pay B$kyB, and their CAMs block your access. It's the
same affect.
- Reliance on a plutocratic executive to procure, bid, and choose
programming whether their audiances want it or not. Much of commercial TV
channels like Sky One or UK TV isn't for the viewers; it's for the
advertisors.
- Disproportional spending on vanity projects: BSKYB's "exclusive" football
coverage, BBC's Harry Potter, etc.
- Management that hides behind a physical steel fence, the trappings of
office, oligopy, and the P.R. and Corporate Communications department.
- Both sides are the dominant "controllers" of their polar-axis. The BBC has
a near monopoly on the Licence Fee. BSKYB has a near monopoly on pay-TV, CAM
management, and subscription carraige.
- Both sides are "in-bed" with the Government. Both the BBC and BSKYB have
to appease at the same time as "steer" this and previous UK Governments.
- Both sides are incredibly capitalistic. Who owns a controlling share in 16
(afaik) channels on BSKYB and a core partner of the Sky Package,
broadcasting from White City, BBC in all but name? UKTV.
Both sides are wrong and both sides are right.
Mr Ball is doing everything he can to undermine and destroy the BBC accept
"compete" with it for customers on the merit of programming, public good, or
even consumers freedom to choose exactly what they want. Bundle or no bundle
is not a choice.
He's short of suckers willing to pay £40 a month, so like Mark Thompson at
C4, now he wants a slice of the BBC.
But, I have no more confidence in Mr Dyke. I fail to see what will be
educational about a class full of 30 (or is it 50) pupils goings to the BBC
"archive" and downloading the same BBC clip as each other.
Perhaps, BSKYB, before it tells the BBC where it can't procure its content
from, will first put its own house in order: It could start by complying
with the "television without frontiers directive", achieve 25% indigenous
content on Sky One peak time, and attempt to sell some programmes to UK
Broadcasters beyond "Rise:", "The Wright Stuff", and "Ibiza Shag-fest".
http://licencefee.com/?mode=barry_cox_lectures
In the future, I would like to see a media market where there is a strong
PSB culture, the BBC as a part of PSB delivery, but also a market where
consumers have unhindered freedom to pay for what they want, refuse what
they don't want, and able to specify a value for content.
The broken market needs fixing, and BSKYB, commercial TV, and the BBC are
all dysfunctional markets.
Nick Humphries
>Sky has been on the go for about 20 years now so I would have thought that
>would be more than enough time for them to produce a classic or two
>themselves. I can`t think of any though.
All Sky are famous for is buying first broadcast rights to movies and American
TV Shows.
Oh, and giving Harry Enfield a series because no one else would.
Dom Robinson
ni...@egyptusWIBBLE.co.uk says...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:05:42 +0100, "mick" <cough...@totlise.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Sky has been on the go for about 20 years now so I would have thought that
> >would be more than enough time for them to produce a classic or two
> >themselves. I can`t think of any though.
>
> All Sky are famous for is buying first broadcast rights to movies and American
> TV Shows.
>
> Oh, and giving Harry Enfield a series because no one else would.
>
Beckham had had another five different haircuts.
--
Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 940 DVDs, 259 games, 33 videos, 67 cinema films, 69 CDs, laserdiscs & news
/* star trek nemesis, bringing down the house, phone booth, human nature
"Your eyes, they take me... to eternity." - Natalie Imbruglia, Identify
Crippen
: Pot calling the Kettle Black... It's one Imperialistic Dictatorship
: Bundle-racket versus another.
:
: Both Corporations have lots of simillarities:
Quite, but Murdoch is, to me anyway, just too akin to Citizen Kane.
& yes I would only watch commercial channels if I didn't have to pay my
license fee.
--
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes with this:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix
<All bottom snipped>
G Bell
>http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=436930
>BBC launches public attack on Murdoch 'imperialism'
>By Vincent Graff, Media and Culture Editor
>25 August 2003
>The controller of BBC1 launched an unprecedented attack on Rupert Murdoch
>yesterday, calling the media billionaire a "capital imperialist" who wants
>to destabilise the corporation because he "is against everything the BBC
>stands for".
Don't forget, tax-doding. Why doesn't this cunt just fuck off to China,
I'm sure he needs a fourth passport for his collection?
>Mr Ball told the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week that
>the BBC ought to be forced to sell its most successful programmes, such as
>EastEnders, Casualty and Have I Got News For You to its commercial rivals,
>who would screen all future episodes instead. The money raised by such sales
>should then be ploughed into experimental programming, he said.
Did he manage to keep a straight face, must be the Bollo...sorry, Botox
injections.
Graham
Carl Waring
news:bics1e$rut$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> - Both sides are incredibly capitalistic. Who owns a controlling share in
16
> (afaik) channels on BSKYB and a core partner of the Sky Package,
> broadcasting from White City, BBC in all but name? UKTV.
Why do some people always use this argument when it is invalid. UKTV is
NOTHING to do with the BBC to whom you pay your licence fee. It is a 50/50
split with the *commercial arm* of the BBC and Flextech, the content
division of Telewest.
I'm sure I've told you this before :-)
--
C/-\R|_ \/\//-\R|I\IG
Terry Eden
> I don't have $ky, and won't have until it unbundles crap channels and
> allows you to pick the channels YOU want, not what they want. It's
<SNIP>
> The populist rubbish can subsidise the infinately better tv
> that usually gets lower ratings (and shitty shedule time).
Don't you see an inherent contradiction in that? I hate the idea of having
to purchase, say, UK Living to get SciFi - but all those people subscribing
for Jerry Springer are pouring money into the SciFi channel.
Terry
Nadia
Kirsty's Home Videoes is a classic example of a program that's capable
of making me feel actual pain vieiwing it. No other channel's done
that yet to me, so it must be classic....
Nadia
Inquisitor
news:KUN2b.2185$O57.5...@wards.force9.net:
> Oh, and $ky have a nerve of not only charging for you to watch their
> tv, but having ad breaks during the programmes themselves. If I'm
> expected to pay heavy money to have something like $ky, then I expect
> zero ad breaks.
Even better than that: the cheapest Sky package is £12 a month, and
features something strangely close to fuck all worthwhile channels.
Compared to that, the license fee is excellent value for money: four
general purpose TV channels, two non-commercial childrens' channels, the
highly underrated News 24, a rolling Parliament service, excellent radio
stations for even those who *don't* pay the license fee to use, and
(similarly) the bbc.co.uk website. Sky, in comparison, provide a tonne of
crappy shopping channels (including proof that mobile phones are the work
of the devil - this being, of course, Phoneworld at ch. 666) at
surprisingly low bitrates.
I am paying £8.50 a month for a Telewest Essential package, featuring Sky
One, E4, all the UKTV and Flextech channels excepting the occasional +1,
VH1 Classic, British Eurosport, Discovery and a few variants, CNBC, a few
random shopping channels, and the Freeview set. Once you include their
phone line-rental, it's *way* better value than the combination of Sky
and a BT line.
If you don't live in a cable area - or worse, one serviced by ntl - then
that is of course tough luck for you. For me, however, it is good value.
--
I N Q U I S I T O R | "Matter of fact, it's all dark."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Web site: <http://www.inquisitor.myinternetpass.com>
| FDLFUOE: <http://www.inquisitor.myinternetpass.com/outlook.html>
Izo Mezzo
what I was and then Dariusz spoke and this is what they said to
me.......
>In article <yhl2b.3799$jH3.35...@news-text.cableinet.net>, "Duncan"
><this...@valid.address> wrote:
>>Lorraine Heggessey said Mr Murdoch's continued attacks on the BBC stemmed
>>from a dislike of the public sector. But he did not understand that the
>>British people "have a National Health Service, a public education system"
>>and trust organisations that are there for the benefit of society and not
>>driven by profit.
>
>The BBC is NOT an essential service, so they cannot be equated to other
>public sector services.
Yes it is. An unbiased (or less commercially biased) news media is
essential. You won't get that with a commercial company who's interests
are making money. Take Fox or Sky, or anything Rupert Murdoch touches,
they constantly pull stories that may affect his interests (ie stop him
making even more money by upsetting China, Monsanto, current
conservative government etc etc.). Even the US, heart of deregulating
everything that isn't nailed down, still has PBS.
News Intl. is a huge commercial company that likes to protect other huge
commercial companies, simply because it has more in common with them
than us and it wants to keep them on side to keep the moolah coming in.
The BBC has none of these conflicts. Yes it has problems, and yes Beeb1
news is crap at the moment, but as a whole it's the best news network we
have and I'll be fucked if Rupert Murdoch dictates any more of his
heavily biased headlines in Britain than he already does. Murdoch wants
the BBC dead so he can monopolise the media, as he is attempting to do
in the US, OZ and China. If the BBC can stop him, that justifies their
existence IMHO.
--
Izo
"I can say, and I am responsible for what
I am saying, that they have started to commit
suicide under the walls of Baghdad.
We will encourage them to commit more
suicides quickly."
- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf,
Iraqi Minister of Information