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

[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.