Murdoch....

[johnny9fingers]

I've been thinking of Rupert Murdoch's coming attempt to charge for news and his ongoing battle with the BBC.

Murdoch has stated that he will attempt to charge for online access to News Corp's various online titles like The Times, and The Sun, and Fox News sometime next year. Evidently this will be after the Conservative Party win the coming general election in the UK, and his tame puppets-in-government enact legislation to prevent the BBC from putting its news content online.

Now, for all my US chums, which news organisation would you rather read or watch online? Fox News? or The BBC? And even if you'd rather read or watch Fox, which organisation would you trust to give accurate facts?

I think the Tory Party have to distance themselves from Murdoch. The old model of newsgathering and journalism is dead, much like the old model of the Music Biz, or the old model of the retail book trade before Amazon. Recognising this fact, and also recognising the fact that this is the last election which an old-fashioned newspaper Baron will ever be able to influence, does David Cameron really want to emasculate the BBC just to pander to either Roops, or the anointed son James.

If he does I will not forget, nor will many other folk.

As is Roops appears to be batting on a losing wicket. Even if he manages to charge for news on the web, he won't be able to stop people from disseminating the information across the web. I await to see the stroke-of-genius (apart from, of course, suborning the Tory party) which will rescue the old-fashioned notion of journalism from the evils of the interweb.

Comments

[tripinthehead33.livejournal.com]

I rarely pay attention to the news of any sort, being that nearly any sort of news is a half-truth at best. Something bent and twisted, repainted and fluffed up in order to make a profit off of it. When I do, it is generally due to something popping up on my computer that catches my eye when I go into my email account. Which point, if it seems important, I cross reference this with other sources in order to find out if it's reasonably accurate. Generally, whats provided through my Yahoo! links are roughly on par with the other sources I cross reference from what I have found.

That being said, I avoid TV news like the plague.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

But then again you're a rare sort of Libertarian. Most of them object to paying for a 'public' service, even if measurably and demonstrably better than any private alternative.

For me, I prefer whatever works best. And screwing up something which functions better than all the alternatives for ideological reasons strikes me as being proof of either insanity, idiocy, or mendacity.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Ah well....I was giving you a chance there. Never mind.

[mister-bitters.livejournal.com]

Honestly, don't waste your time trying to get Libertarians to understand that such things like the common good exist and that public funding of those things is for the benefit of everyone. They don't see it, they don't want to see it, and they refuse to see it. It's all about about them and reasonable, rational explanations don't work. Don't mind the fact that the American Constitution's own Preamble sets forth the very policy and belief that the common welfare is to be worked for by the Federal government. Libertarians have foolishly bought into the belief that the selling of goods is all important and that everything is a commodity to be traded. They are one of the many reasons I'm working to leave the USA for good. If and when I can take up residence in a more intelligent nation, I will gladly work for citizenship and happily renounce my American citizenship.

[wc-helmets.livejournal.com]

I can think of no better way to kill his influence on the media than by people having to pay to go to the internet for news. If you're giving me a choice, I'd prefer BBC over Murdoch, Inc, but I usually just go to google news and pick one from there. My real preference is the Christian Science Monitor for some reason.

Still, there's talk of BBC not being able to print online? That just sounds scary, but can't you guys just like go out on a boat and upload to the net from there?? It can be like Radio London all over again, and The Who can use snippets of it on their next album!

"...go to the church of your choice..."

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

It's more that there is the possibility of the BBC's news service across the net being shut down, rather than not being able to access it. The BBC is funded publically, and although it is free from political bias, its funding is arranged through a licence fee, which is the equivalent of a mandatory tax. Now this tax pays for lots and lots of BBC services. An incoming Tory government in thrall to Roops may have made promises to him to limit or stop the BBC from putting 'free' news across the net, on the basis of infringement of NewsCorp's trade, and unfair competition.

However, the BBC's journalists and editorial staff have standards many times higher than NewsCorp's. Also the BBC is subject to regular and close public scrutiny. You get pretty unbiased news from the BBC. Alas the same cannot be said of any private newsgathering companies.

Because of the BBC's public funding, some Libertarians would prefer privatisation, objecting to paying a tax for this sort of thing. I reckon the quality of the output provides the best defence against this sort of threat, especially when compared to the quality of output from the private sector.

[mister-bitters.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I don't think the argument protects Americans from Libertarian idiocy. It might save the Beeb, but I can't see such rational thought working here. We're talking about a country that can't find our own ass with both hands glued to our butt cheeks.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I hope that folk this side of the pond don't have to save the Beeb, and next year's incoming government will not castrate it.

I think folk might well get hugely upset if the Tories fuck with the Beeb.

[mister-bitters.livejournal.com]

I hope so. Even over here, I rely on the BBC for news that I can trust. I enjoy NPR and believe in public radio and television, but I rely on the BBC to not lie to me about what's going on. I also rely on their web presence for information. I should look into foreign financial support for it.

[wc-helmets.livejournal.com]

Yea, your whole royal mandate thing has me confused when it comes to taxation and the BBC as we have no model like that in the States. I'd never thought about it in terms of a checks and balance in regards to the news, but I like that idea that a media outlet somewhat publicly funded being held accountable to the public. Anyway, I certainly hope things don't go the route of BBC not having an internet outlet.

[donolectic.livejournal.com]

I reckon the quality of the output provides the best defence against this sort of threat, especially when compared to the quality of output from the private sector.

Precisely. The BBC is performing a public service for the world and is one of the best sales cards for the UK in the world. From my perspective, there is no better organization in the english speaking world.

And it's not just the news I love, I also get Radio One through my satellite radio. :-D

[wc-helmets.livejournal.com]

I can't think of another contemporary media which I could consistently place the label of 'objective' to. I don't necessarily think most newspapers are explicitly ideological (just compare papers now vs. papers circa the 19th century), but I'm not naive enough to think an ideology isn't there and that ideology may influence things like story placement and editorial bias. With CSM, I'm not sure what their editorial ideology is, and I like that about them.

[vlion.livejournal.com]

I like that Fox has chosen to stand for the conservative side. I can dig up Democrat issues there easier(if I choose to). I think having the ability to dig up disparaging facts is good and - taken together with a liberal site, can give a reasonably 'less biased' view of things. I abhor their focus on opinion and editorials.

That said, I think the BBC is probably the best news service out there today. The others I know about are definitely biased. BBC seems to uphold a certain journalistic integrity ideal.

The WSJ comes close, but I wish it would be independent from Fox/The Sun. It's standards are perceptibly shifting and moving closer to the Fox's ranting.

I deeply want to be able to read an online US Newspaper by Real Journalists and know that they have made best efforts at giving the full, factual story from all responsible sides. I don't want to see biases peeping in and editorializing away uncomfortable facts or preaching a point of view.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Ah well, Roops got his hands on Dow Jones and Co and the WSJ in 2007, and already folk are noticing the difference.

Perhaps you could start a movement to pay for BBC style journalism for the USA. It costs us, here in the UK, some £142 from each household a year for the whole lot: TV, Radio, The Proms, the Web service, International News etc & etc. That's less than two quid a week. I'll wager satellite or cable costs a lot more.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I should clarify £142 for all the BBC's output.

[vlion.livejournal.com]

*figures*

1.6 dollars / pound => 3.2 dollar/wk => 12.8 dollar / mo.

Typical television service is between 20 and 40 dollar / mo, I think. That gets you some mix of news, sports, movies, and the weather channel, depending on the package. I don't buy TV services myself.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I'm mainly a radio listener. BBC Radio is without compare: if you are into minority things like classical music the Beeb's output has little or no competition worldwide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc_radio_3

[mister-bitters.livejournal.com]

I'd advise you to research the changes. They are there, they are blatant, and they are disgusting. The WSJ was once a reliable source, but now it serves Fox and this is not good.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Murdoch has realised that he's on a losing wicket. His main competitor for a fee-based news empire is the free news empires. Those with credibility are those that are funded by the public. It must be driving him nuts.

[winterlion.livejournal.com]

Faux news or BBC... hmmm
well if BBC dissappears, I'll go back to watching Canadian comedy - it's more accurate, more reliably reported and less biased than Faux news ;)