Why Murdoch really matters

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Polly Toynbee is often predictable and boring but this column is on the money

it is at heart about the BBC:

If you think this is a navel-gazing media story, here's a reminder of what Hunt was about to unleash on the country, with Cameron and George Osborne's approval. If Murdoch were allowed to own all BSkyB, within a year or two he would package all his newspapers on subscription or online together with his movie and sports channels in offers consumers could hardly refuse, at loss-leading prices. Other news providers, including this one, would be driven out, or reduced to a husk. His would be the commanding news voice. Except for the BBC – which his media have attacked relentlessly for years.

Sky's dominance over the BBC is already looming: now past its investment phase, Sky's income is multiplying fast at £5.5bn a year, against the BBC's static £3.5bn. Sky's growing billions can buy everything, not only sports and movies, but every best series: the BBC trains and develops talent, predatory Sky will snatch it. Nor is Sky that good for the Treasury: for every £1 in Sky subscriptions, 90p flees the country, straight to News Corp and Hollywood in the US.

The BBC is remarkable value for money: Sky subscribers can pay £500 a year, the licence fee is £145 for masses more content. Sky is parasitic, as its own subscribers watch many more hours of BBC than Sky, so Sky would collapse if the BBC denied it its channels. Yet the BBC still pays £5m a year for appearing on its platform, a deal struck by Thatcher to help Murdoch.

the Tories hate the BBC they regard it as a leftie conspiracy and i think many of them would honestly like to finish it off ....

they earnestly desire a Murdoch Media Machine One Newsroom One Leader One People eh ........................ er that is one way the fascist revolution starts .... do not be swayed by the little sweaty right wing historians that this all about 'free markets' and a storm in a thimble [see Andrew Roberts on last night's This Week] the stakes are very high

it is about something not just the seedy greed and dominance it looks like at first glance ....why are these posh schoolboys so keen to take such reputation risks ?....

how come the MetPol was so dilatory? [and a leading exponent of MetPol democratic lawnordah is now helping Bahrain manage their spring ... [cue The Producers]

any one remember King and The Daily Mirror Coup that wasn't ?..... were we close again or near it or was it nastier altogether ... not a coup but a carve up ...austerity vicar?

[amateur51]

Not just Polly who's on the money, Calum - many thanks

[ahinton]

Lots of interesting material here.

The BBC is not, of course, any kind of leftie conspiracy.

I'm not sure that La Toynbee's reference to "what Hunt was about to unleash on the country, with Cameron and George Osborne's approval" is necessarily quite as "on the money" as some of the remainder of what she writes here. We've not heard the last of this yet. What she claims Hunt was about to unleash may ultimately happen anyway, even if some sector/s of the Murdoch empire have to break the law in order to ensure that it does. Breaking the law is OK for the lawbreakers if they're big enough to get away with doing so openly. Someone recently noted that some outfits seem to consider themslves to be bigger than nations; he/she has a point. Should Murdoch ultimately achieve all of this and more of the same, both here and elsewhere, the consequent size of Newscorp will likely be such that it can tell various governments where to go and ensure that they do so.

[amateur51]

Lots of interesting material here.

The BBC is not, of course, any kind of leftie conspiracy.

I'm not sure that La Toynbee's reference to "what Hunt was about to unleash on the country, with Cameron and George Osborne's approval" is necessarily quite as "on the money" as some of the remainder of what she writes here, to the extent that I don't think that we've heard the last of this yet and am by no means convinced that what she claims Hunt was about to unleash may not ultimately happen anyway, even if that comes to involve some sector/s of the Murdoch empire breaking the law in order to ensure that it does; after all, breaking the law is OK for the lawbreakers if they're big enough to get away with doing so openly - the respondent to another recent article who drew attention to the notion that some outfits seem to consider themslves bigger than nations has a point and, if Murdoch ultimately does indeed achieve all of this and yet more of the same here and elsewhere, the consequent size of Newscorp will likely be sufficient for it to be able to tell various governments where to go and ensure that they do so.

I don't want to seem to be persecuting you ahinton, but your third paragraph is almost Jamesian, being nine lines long with only one full stop.

I'm only one of your readers for sure, but I find it quite impenetrable and as I know that it will contain much to illumine and even to entertain, it is a sadness to find your thoughts presented in such a clotted form

[aeolium]

While I agree with the first sentence of that quotation, I think that as usual with Toynbee there is a lot of rubbish in there. It seems nonsense to me that Murdoch's papers, which are generally loss-making like nearly all papers now, would drive all other news providers out. And the point about Sky collapsing if the BBC denied it its channels, as I have argued here before, just seems plain wrong. Why does anyone think people take out Sky subscriptions - to watch BBC channels that they can perfectly well watch on Freeview (now on virtually every TV either built-in or via digibox)? They watch Sky primarily for the sport or the movies or both. I certainly don't agree with the BBC paying Sky to appear on its platform, but that is not to say that Sky is dependent on the BBC. In any case I think the internet and the increasing merger of TV and internet platforms is a greater threat to both the BBC and potentially Sky than Sky is to the BBC.

Moreover the story has moved on - the Murdochs far from being able to seize full control of Sky as they looked like doing, may now face the prospect of having to divest even those shares they currently own if they are found by Ofcom to be not fit and proper persons for media ownership. If that happens, will Toynbee remain implacably opposed to Sky, or indeed any commercial alternative to the BBC?

[ahinton]

I don't want to seem to be persecuting you ahinton

You aren't!

your third paragraph is almost Jamesian, being nine lines long with only one full stop

Henry or Clive?(!)

I'm only one of your readers for sure, but I find it quite impenetrable and as I know that it will contain much to illumine and even to entertain, it is a sadness to find your thoughts presented in such a clotted form

Clotted cream. I'd like to think - but never mind that; try the edited version as it now is and tell me if it makes better sense to you.

[amateur51]

If that happens, will Toynbee remain implacably opposed to Sky, or indeed any commercial alternative to the BBC?

Is Polly 'implaccably opposed' to Sky or to the activities and ambitions of the Murdoch family?

[amateur51]

You aren't!


Henry or Clive?(!)


Clotted crem. I'd like to think - but never kind that; try the edited version as it now is and tell me if it makes better sense to you.

I knew you could do it!

Many thanks

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

bbc

[aeolium]

Is Polly 'implaccably opposed' to Sky or to the activities and ambitions of the Murdoch family?

I'm really not sure (at least I'm sure she is opposed to the Murdochs as many are), which is why I would be interested to see what her attitude would be if the Murdochs were forced to sell their stake in Sky (currently 39% IIRC).

[Mr Pee]

If you think this is a navel-gazing media story, here's a reminder of what Hunt was about to unleash on the country, with Cameron and George Osborne's approval. If Murdoch were allowed to own all BSkyB, within a year or two he would package all his newspapers on subscription or online together with his movie and sports channels in offers consumers could hardly refuse, at loss-leading prices. Other news providers, including this one, would be driven out, or reduced to a husk. His would be the commanding news voice. Except for the BBC – which his media have attacked relentlessly for years

The above seems to be based either on insider knowledge, which I find highly unlikely, or simple speculation. I am quite sure that Ms Toynbee is not privy to Murdoch's business plans, so it must be the latter.

Sky's dominance over the BBC is already looming: now past its investment phase, Sky's income is multiplying fast at £5.5bn a year, against the BBC's static £3.5bn. Sky's growing billions can buy everything, not only sports and movies, but every best series: the BBC trains and develops talent, predatory Sky will snatch it. Nor is Sky that good for the Treasury: for every £1 in Sky subscriptions, 90p flees the country, straight to News Corp and Hollywood in the US.

Perhaps the BBC should ask itself why so many consumers are prepared to fork out money for Sky TV. Of course, some pay for the sports and movies pack- I do not. I subscribed to Sky for the Arts channels, and for increased choice across the board. If the BBC's Arts coverage were not so feeble these days- just take a look at this year's Young Musician contest to see how much they have lost the plot in that area- then I might not have felt the need. And it's true that Sky show some great series- Game of Thrones on Sky Atlantic is one of the best TV series I have seen for many a year- but again, it's called competition. If the BBC hadn't wasted millions on their relocation to Salford, and paid their top executives and "talent" such ludicrously high salaries, perhaps they could have spent the money on decent programmes instead. As for the "predatory" comment, it's ridiculous. Sky do not come in and snatch BBC staff like some sort of kidnapper. Many of the same faces appear in both Sky and BBC programmes. And if the Government take 10% of all Sky's profit in tax, then I would suggest that amounts to a nice little bonus for the treasury. And Sky of course also provide Broadband and Telephone services. It's not just TV.

The BBC is remarkable value for money: Sky subscribers can pay £500 a year, the licence fee is £145 for masses more content. Sky is parasitic, as its own subscribers watch many more hours of BBC than Sky, so Sky would collapse if the BBC denied it its channels. Yet the BBC still pays £5m a year for appearing on its platform, a deal struck by Thatcher to help Murdoch.

As has been pointed out, you don't need Sky to watch the BBC. I don't know where PT gets her viewing information from- I, as one Sky subscriber, now watch much more on Sky than on the BBC, (but of course I can't expect a reduction in my licence fee as a result.) Sky Arts, Sky Atlantic, the F1 Channel, Sky news- I spend much more time watching just those channels than I do watching the BBC, where I increasingly struggle to find anything much worth tuning in for. I gave Young Musician a try, hoping against hope that the BBC might not have dumbed it down to pre-school level, but I have now even given up on that. I am confident that if Sky Arts ran a similar competition they would treat it much more seriously.

[amateur51]

bbc

Many thanks Calum.

Ignore the out-of-synch picture/sound if you can & get stuck into some very disturbing raw art that resonates still.:shudder emoticon:

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

this is not clarified by a rationalist discourse .... it is a conspiracy of nods winks and spectacle ...they were relying on each others predictability and save for one stone in one shoe they would have got away with it but instead the cascade and now look where we are all up to and it is by no means over yet ....

the Right always offers the Punters Patria Liberty Justice but always practices coup and or carve up ... remember the eighties?

[John Wright]

While I too would fear a complete dominance/takeover of media by Sky, I just want to point out an inaccuracy, from my viewing experience and many others too of course,

The BBC is remarkable value for money: Sky subscribers can pay £500 a year, the licence fee is £145 for masses more content. Sky is parasitic, as its own subscribers watch many more hours of BBC than Sky

Wrong. BBC has measses more content? No. I, and many others, watch about 4 hours of BBC a week, and watch about 10-15 hours of other digital channels a week, sometimes 20+

[Mr Pee]

While I too would fear a complete dominance/takeover of media by Sky, I just want to point out an inaccuracy, from my viewing experience and many others too of course,



Wrong. BBC has measses more content? No. I, and many others, watch about 4 hours of BBC a week, and watch about 10-15 hours of other digital channels a week, sometimes 20+

Me too, as I said above. And masses more content on the BBC? That comment could only come from someobdy with zero knowledge of what is actually available on Sky.