Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[french frank]

In the US Fox News is hated by a certain section of the US public as it doesn't peddle the politically-correct, neo-liberal, west-coast message. You say it's scandalously biased: others say how important it is to balance the stuff churned out by the left. It's no more biased on politics than the BBC - I listened to Today a week or so ago with absolute horror at the agenda that Naughtie was openly pushing.

But not only is Fox News criticised by moderate Republicans, it has actually openly excluded Republican politicians who don't toe the right-wing party line.

This quote from one Republican says it all about Fox, Murdoch and the non democratic influencing of politicians.

Q: "It sounds like you're saying that the Glenn Becks, the Rush Limbaughs, hijacked the Republican party and drove it to a defeat?"

A: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox."

This country doesn't need Murdoch any more than it needs politicians who 'work for him'.

[MrGongGong]

Some people seem to STILL be completely convinced that the BBC has a totally "left wing" (not that that means anything anymore !) bias ...... it's like the whole Tebbit 1980's thing all over again

it's blatantly clear that this is the case as they completely ignored the Royal Wedding last year, only ever broadcast documentaries about our forces which portray them as immoral killers and have now pulled the last night of the Proms as its far too jingoistic and insulting to multicultural Britain ............

:doh:

[Mr Pee]

Some people seem to STILL be completely convinced that the BBC has a totally "left wing" (not that that means anything anymore !) bias ...... it's like the whole Tebbit 1980's thing all over again

it's blatantly clear that this is the case as they completely ignored the Royal Wedding last year, only ever broadcast documentaries about our forces which portray them as immoral killers and have now pulled the last night of the Proms as its far too jingoistic and insulting to multicultural Britain ............

:doh:

Yes, the link is to a Daily Mail article,:yikes:, not one from the Guardian, and therefore worthless to most contributors here, :doh:, but it is by Peter Sissons, who is probably better qualified to write about the BBC than most.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

[eighthobstruction]

But not only is Fox News criticised by moderate Republicans, it has actually openly excluded Republican politicians who don't toe the right-wing party line.

This quote from one Republican says it all about Fox, Murdoch and the non democratic influencing of politicians.

Q: "It sounds like you're saying that the Glenn Becks, the Rush Limbaughs, hijacked the Republican party and drove it to a defeat?"

A: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox."

This country doesn't need Murdoch any more than it needs politicians who 'work for him'.

Thanks for finding that ff....I'm very interested in Fox's out put....any idea where that came from ???

[Simon]

This quote from one Republican says it all...

No it doesn't. It says just one viewpoint from one Republican.

...about Fox, Murdoch and the non democratic influencing of politicians.

(Almost) all politicians are influenced by non-democratic considerations. People make a career out of "lobbying" - more so in the USA than here, but it goes on here too, to an extent that most people wouldn't believe. Lobbyists - i.e. people who try non-democratically to buy or influence the votes of politicians to affect policies - work for numerous organisations, largely connected with business and special interest groups.

Yes, I'm against it. Yes, I've done it. No, I can't see how it could change, certainly in the short term. Yes, I'm glad that it's done by those on the right as well as those on the left, as that way at least there's a balance of sorts.

Or do you think that only the baddies have conservative views and that anything right of centre should be banned... ?


All quotes above from ff's recent post on previous page.

[Simon]

Yes, the link is to a Daily Mail article,:yikes:, not one from the Guardian, and therefore worthless to most contributors here, :doh:, but it is by Peter Sissons, who is probably better qualified to write about the BBC than most.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Sissons.html

You should know better than to expect logic from certain of our co-posters, Mr P. :winkeye:

It's an excellent article and was widely read at the time of issue. But as Sissons says, nothing will change.

As I re-read it, it strikes me that it's a bit like the general ethos on here, isn't it?

For example: (quotes from the article referred to)

Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities. The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. ... And Government spending is a good thing...

even when there's no money left

All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain.

Islam must not be offended at any price, although iChristians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.

The only other thing you'd need to add to include prevailing rules here is:

"Nobody must be allowed to state anything against mass immigration to the UK which is A Good Thing."

[handsomefortune]

"simon"

i wish sissons the best of luck with his new book. presumably he's topping up his lavish pension (from the beeb/itn) with some romantic memories of life as a news reader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture_of_the_New_Capitalism

besides, sisson's has no idea what it's like at itn ... because he clearly hasn't worked there for some time.

but nostalgia ...'rose tinted glasses' are alot easier to withdraw behind, than to appreciate that 'the culture of the new capitalism' is a killer for all politics, and all employees (etc) alike. that is, regardless of left, or right ideology. people such as murdoch demonstrate this point beautifully ...unfortunately.

i don't watch tv personally - but i'm sure itn employs compliant, youthful, (comparitively)'amateur' news readers too ....just as the beeb has fallen for the same disastrous tactics, not to mention a hypocritical, shoddy example to tv viewers. yet, imo neither org will attract the audience they claim to be wooing; so ultimately 'reforms' are all a bit of an own goal. (eg 're-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic')

anyway, don't let my link, (or sp/punc/abbrevs) get in your way - back to hanging out all your angst in posts about: new migrants, environmentalism, islam, and international institutions. murdoch will be disappointed that you've left some out of your list ..... but i'm sure you'll come up trumps..all in good time.

personally, i think the next handy decoy (news wise) - will be (endless discussion) about the planned death penalty review. fortunately, the new blair revelations take the edge off excited radio 4 babble about abortion 'reform', and the implications of NI investigations on the coalition leader. but i'm sure that murdoch would be the first to agree, that timing, regarding the release of info to the public, is everything, to competitive news vendors. in this sense only - nothing changes on that count.

"Due to mechanization and the need for upskilling, managers as well as their subordinates face the possibility of obsolescence. Concepts such as craftmanship and getting the job right are seen as wasteful and somewhat obsessive."

perhaps the above might help sissons understand his career loss? although tbh, sisson's generation got a really great run out of things, especially in comparison to my own generation, and below.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks for the link to Sennett's book, HSF.

Funny - I'd figured out his theory in 1994 when I did Business Studies as a "mature student" as part of a degree, and we were subjected to Maslow and Tom Phillips.

As a 65-year old retired, I am completely at one with your views in general: they, at least give me some hope.

[Simon]

Odd you should quote Sennett, hsf. We were talking about him a week or so ago. A clever man, who has managed successfully to identify some of the major problems in modern society, especially in cities. Unfortunately, in my view, he seems to have failed completely to identify the real causes of such problems. A shame.

Not odd, of course, that you fail to comment on any of Sissons' pertinent points... :whistle:

[Serial_Apologist]

"Due to mechanization and the need for upskilling, managers as well as their subordinates face the possibility of obsolescence. Concepts such as craftmanship and getting the job right are seen as wasteful and somewhat obsessive."

There you are, simon... Sums his position up rather well, I think, and speaks for itself.

[Simon]

The problem is, S-A, that he relates only to a section of society. I wouldn't disagree with the quote you make: but it refers only to one part of society, to one type of person's way of doing things. I could take you to many places where it simply doesn't apply. There again, he's known for his work with the urban sector, with cities...

And don't forget that the problem of being overtaken by progress has ocurred all the way through history. I know it's speeded up massively over the past couple of centuries, but nobody can rely on a job for life, really. Even in land management and agriculture.

Unless, of course, we revert to a more subsistence and earth-friendly way of living... which I suspect we may have to at some point in the future, if we are to survive as a nation. Species, even! The sooner the better as far as I am concerned - up here we're nearly there already!!

[Flosshilde]

Yes, the link is to a Daily Mail article,:yikes:, not one from the Guardian, and therefore worthless to most contributors here, :doh:, but it is by Peter Sissons, who is probably better qualified to write about the BBC than most.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-Sissons.html

I seem to remember that Mr Sisson's had a particular axe to grind. However, I don't think he does his case much good when he gives the following in support of it -

"Back in October 1995, the then leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair, made his big speech at the Labour Party Conference — but on the Six O’clock News, there was every chance it would be upstaged by the verdict in the sensational OJ Simpson trial in the U.S., which was expected at the same time....Alastair Campbell, ... faxed the BBC and ITN ‘not to lose sight of the importance to the country of Mr Blair’s speech’. He wanted it to lead the news. ITN ignored his letter. The BBC made sure the Six O’clock News complied"

Well, Tony Blair's speech was rather more relevant to the BBC News viewers than the result of the trial of a USA sports celebrity :doh: I would certainly expect a conference speech by the leader of the opposition (whatever the party) to lead the news bulletin.

(& a photo caption says that "Queen Elizabeth II was not a favourite at the BBC" - does the past tense mean that she is now a fovourite, or that she is dead?)

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

er questioning the ahem, ... vitality ... of the Monarch is treasonable Flosshilde ...

the execs at the committee were pretty clear in their view that JM knew ....

long live the Queen!

[Mr Pee]

I seem to remember that Mr Sisson's had a particular axe to grind. However, I don't think he does his case much good when he gives the following in support of it -

"Back in October 1995, the then leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair, made his big speech at the Labour Party Conference — but on the Six O’clock News, there was every chance it would be upstaged by the verdict in the sensational OJ Simpson trial in the U.S., which was expected at the same time....Alastair Campbell, ... faxed the BBC and ITN ‘not to lose sight of the importance to the country of Mr Blair’s speech’. He wanted it to lead the news. ITN ignored his letter. The BBC made sure the Six O’clock News complied"

Well, Tony Blair's speech was rather more relevant to the BBC News viewers than the result of the trial of a USA sports celebrity :doh: I would certainly expect a conference speech by the leader of the opposition (whatever the party) to lead the news bulletin.

(& a photo caption says that "Queen Elizabeth II was not a favourite at the BBC" - does the past tense mean that she is now a fovourite, or that she is dead?)

Well, I'm no fan of celebrity culture, Floss, but the fact is that the OJ Simpson trial/ verdict was a major news story and as I remember led most news bulletins that day, including Channel 4.

And I certainly don't agree that the Leader of the Opposition's party conference speech- or even the PM's equivalent- should automatically be the lead story. Such speeches are little more than empty promises, attention grabbing soundbites, lame jokes, and wearingly predictable attacks on the other parties, most of which will have been drafted by spin doctors and advisers. The Leaders's speech has about as much to do with the serious business of politics as the Last Night has with the rest of the Prom season. I rarely bother watching either.

As for the QE2 remark- you obviously didn't pay much attention when you read the article- Peter Sissons is talking about his years at the BBC- in the past tense. Hence the past tense on the photo. It's quite simple.....:doh:

[french frank]

Well, I'm no fan of celebrity culture, Floss, but the fact is that the OJ Simpson trial/ verdict was a major news story and as I remember led most news bulletins that day, including Channel 4.

So the BBC alone got it right in the shallow world of the media.