Murdoch attack on 'dominant' BBC

Murdoch attack on 'dominant' BBC

news.bbc.co.uk

News Corporation's James Murdoch has said that a "dominant" BBC threatens independent journalism in the UK.

The chairman of the media giant in Europe, which owns the Times and Sun, also blamed the UK government for regulating the media "with relish".

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm very sorry, but if this NWO stooge thinks he's going to be able to stop the BBC he's mad.

The British would never stand for it, I'm talking open revolt.

Now I'm not saying that the BBC is not a mouthpiece for the NWO and typical of MSM, but the fact it doesn't operate for profit makes it a little more reliable and honourable.

Anything that helps a Bilderberger lose £2 billion in a year is OK in my books!

Just like the Bankers, it's okay when they're raking in billions in profit, but when they start to make a loss, they go looking for scapegoats, and the people have to suffer.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Imagining having the chutzpah to claim that a "dominant" BBC threatens independent journalism in the UK while News Corp owns almost all of Australia's national newspapers.

Pathetic.

Murdoch
The Beeb

Flipping love the BBC. Test Match Special and all the nature documentaries are worth the license fee alone.

So the news is #e, isn't all TV news?

Hope the Tories don't dismantle the BBC when they get into power next year. Small hope, i know, but hope all the same.

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Now I'm not saying that the BBC is not a mouthpiece for the NWO and typical of MSM, but the fact it doesn't operate for profit makes it a little more reliable and honourable.news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Uhm...it's run by the government, how does that make it more reliable than a for profit news organization like Reuters or the AP? When was the last time the NPR said anything negative about the government in the U.S.? Why would media be critical of who hands out the pay checks...look at GE...what they've done as a result of their government contracts in regards to NBC is bad enough. I'm not saying the BBC is all noise and no news, I enjoy their news segments, but it has its place...but there needs to be for profit competition that can be critical of government. People can slam Murdoch all they want, but he has a point.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by yellowcard]

BBC is exceptionally greedy, and has far more money than it needs. No other channel demands exorbitant licence fees. Contrary to popular belief, it DOES advertise and run for profit. I'd like to see it go.

reply to post by yellowcard


It's not run by the Government. They have repeatedly upset and annoyed Governments and politicians of every persuasion. Their reporting of the Govts. Iraq WMD document and the viscious response it got from Blair's Government, resulted in the board of the BBC caving in and effectively sacking the Director General. Not a perfect organisation but a bloody sight better than anything the Murdochs have on offer.

I'd much rather place my trust in a publicly accountable institution like the BBC than some shabby little monopolist like Murdoch Jnr.



[edit on 29/8/09, by Fang]

you should watch the video, you have Murdoch quoting George Orwell's 1984. Unbelievable. He looks like one slimy character to me.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by kiwifoot


I do not trust the BBC, they're a government mouthpiece and consistently avoid real news in favour of repeating the government stance or public opinion.

However, it IS better than some greedy corporate monster. They DO have more of a responsibility to tell the truth, whereas anything owned by a corporation can manipulate everything for their personal gain.

One day people will wake up and start boycotting (or worse) all these corporate scumbags, and I look forward to it with relish.

Originally posted by yellowcard
Uhm...it's run by the government, how does that make it more reliable than a for profit news organization like Reuters or the AP? When was the last time the NPR said anything negative about the government in the U.S.? Why would media be critical of who hands out the pay checks...look at GE...what they've done as a result of their government contracts in regards to NBC is bad enough. I'm not saying the BBC is all noise and no news, I enjoy their news segments, but it has its place...but there needs to be for profit competition that can be critical of government. People can slam Murdoch all they want, but he has a point.

The BBC isn't run by the Government. In fact, ministers go to great lengths to distance themselves from being seen to interefere with the BBC.

BBC News is widely seen as the least biased news source in the land. It is regulary critical of Government and often gives ministers a very hard time on air if they have cocked up or are seen to flip-flop etc.

Given the choice of news channels available, the BBC stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of quality and content.

Murdoch Jr, who made these remarks, can piss off back to the prison colony he crawled from. The irony of him moaning about lack of "press freedom" and "quality journalism" is amazing.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

I do not trust the BBC, they're a government mouthpiece and consistently avoid real news in favour of repeating the government stance or public opinion.

You obviously don't watch BBC news then. I am highly critical of the Government and despise Labour, so I'd be the first to complain if the BBC was a Government shill, but they are a fair news outlet and do criticise government alot.

reply to post by kiwifoot


The bbc are the media arm of MI(agencies), and you think its better than murdock, lol.

The bbc are a danger to us just as much as murdock. Look at the havoc they helped create in iran recently.

reply to post by andy1033


Give over Andy. Really had quite enough of your "they're out to get me, I'm so important they'll waste resources stalking me for 15 years" attitude.

Back up your claims, if you want to be believed. But you never do, hence my hostility.

BBC stirring up trouble in Iran? They were shadowed by the Iranian security services for the whole time and had their reports vetted before being allowed to submit them, so how could they possibly have been storring up trouble?

I'll admit that perhaps Western intelligence agencies may have had a hand, but the BBC? No chance..

I watched this on Newsnight last night and was going to type a fair bit about but I think someone else basically summed it up with:

Not a perfect organisation but a bloody sight better than anything the Murdochs have on offer.

Isn't there some fact out that there 70% of the world's media outlets are owned by the same chunk of people / corporations (yeah I just pulled that out of thin air but I'm sure there is some figure, which is high).

If the BBC was gone it would allow News Corp to dominate even more than they do already. Why should just one set of people be allowed to dictate the tone of the media?

As a side note I'd agree that something needs to be done about the problem with local newspapers being hammered in the age of the internet, but they'd help themselves for starters if they could get past reporting how some old lady fell over and produce quality content.

reply to post by Fang

I'd much rather place my trust in a publicly accountable institution like the BBC than some shabby little monopolist like Murdoch Jnr.

If thats your stance, than stop whining about Fox and the like. The BBC's own studies have show the network to be completely in the tank for one ideology. I'm so tired of people like you lashing out at Beck, Murdoch and anyone else you don't agree with, than turning around and defending the BBC as "real news". Give me a break.



[edit on 29-8-2009 by Wimbly]

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Now I'm not saying that the BBC is not a mouthpiece for the NWO and typical of MSM, but the fact it doesn't operate for profit makes it a little more reliable and honourable.

I think you will find that the BBC makes something like £100 million in profit every year. They screw you, the license fee payer, by using the government to extort money from you every year which they then use to fund programming which they then sell on via the BBC's commercial arm. You are basically an investor who sees no monitary return from your investment, even though said investment is profitable. You do not even see a reduction in the license fee, it only ever goes up.

The BBC is a government mouthpiece. The government use the license fee as a whipping stick to keep the BBC toeing the party line.

When in doubt, consult angryharry. He is quite angry.

link

[edit on 29-8-2009 by quackers]

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by andy1033

 

Give over Andy. Really had quite enough of your "they're out to get me, I'm so important they'll waste resources stalking me for 15 years" attitude.

Back up your claims, if you want to be believed. But you never do, hence my hostility.

I do not need to back up my claims here, i worked for the bbc and that was the end of my working life, so there.

I should know a little of what happens at that company, lol.

None of the stuff i write here is claims, facts are facts. I am not going to write stuff on net for you to read, if you want to live your life in ignorance thats your choice.

You can place me on ignore, but i am never going to stop talking about what happened to my life, for the last 17.5 years.

That was one of the most chilling things I've ever heard. The only thing that matters is profit? Good God, I won't even begin, because I doubt I'll ever stop if I start waxing angry about the terrible nature of our society.

Murdoch
BBC

I don't consider either of them to be much good. Both have bias to the right and left respectively + they feed us a lot of disinfo.

reply to post by andy1033


Er, you do actually.

You often post cyrptic, mysterious rubbish about being gang stalked by Police who are hell bent on ruining your life, then just stop posting when people dig deeper.

You never post anything of substance, nor provide anything to back your claims up, despite myself and others repeatedly asking you.

But you expect me to believe you worked for the BBC and that I should just "take your word for it".

I'm not ignorant, nor am I bloody stupid.