Ad Lib Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 You said yourself earlier how much of the UK media Murdoch owns. From SKY news, Sky sports to the Sun and Times newspapers, he has more influence now than the BBC ever will have in the future. BBC News share: 39.3% Sky + News Corp: 22.0% Go figure. The Sun, with it's low quality content is dished out as cheaply as is possible to keep a grip on the bottom end of society and trying hard to change public opinion. How two faced is for one organisation to have two different versions of a newspaper with two different "editors views"? It's a regional equivalent. News groups do this ALL the time! The Daily Telegraph in Scotland has its own edition and quasi-autonomous editorial content. The Daily Record is in all but name the Scottish Mirror. Even the Daily Mail is now styling itself the Scottish Daily Mail north of the border. What's new here? The "Scottish" Sun and "Scottish" News of the World are somewhat of a challenge to Newsnight "Scotland". Murdoch tried to stop that BBC endeavour from kicking off. Okay what? The funny thing about The Sun is they get lots of their info via £50 - £100 payments to local grasses wanting a quick top up to their bank balances. Not very professional when relying on junkies, alkies and whores for your information. No wonder there are so many journos on the dole. Again, what? No one's suggesting for a second that The Sun is some kind of paragon of virtue, but what is the point you're trying to make here? The Trinity Mirror group are the ones who have been caught most often entering in the subterfuge of blagging; not NewsCorp. To single out Murdoch when he's a) not the worst offender and b) not the most influential is just bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 To single out Murdoch when he's a) not the worst offender and b) not the most influential is just bizarre. I'm not singling out anyone, I'm smart enough to read beyond headlines on policies and promises. I'll just reiterate that Murdoch buys people, from all walks of life. If other folk are swayed on who to vote for because of what's in the papers or on TV, then more fool them. The BBC have less of an influence as they are "supposed" to be non biased (and are monitored to be so). I'm really struggling to think of any individual who is more influencial than Murdoch. Give us a clue. ETA: This little gem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I'm not singling out anyone, I'm smart enough to read beyond headlines on policies and promises. I'll just reiterate that Murdoch buys people, from all walks of life. If other folk are swayed on who to vote for because of what's in the papers or on TV, then more fool them. There's nothing wrong with this. If people want to be bought by him, that's their prerogative. The BBC have less of an influence as they are "supposed" to be non biased (and are monitored to be so). I'm really struggling to think of any individual who is more influencial than Murdoch. Give us a clue. The point being that the BBC aren't *actually* non-biased and that the "monitoring" doesn't seem to do anything at all. It's just a façade behind which they hide to create a veneer of impartiality when actually they're just The Guardian in TV drag. The reality is that the BBC is much more influential than NewsCorp or Sky, or the two combined. ETA: This little gem. This clip is hardly news. Adam Boulton in being easily wound-up by Alastair Campbell shocker The one thing going for Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson is that both of them were World Class wind-up merchants. They know how to get a reaction out of just about anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 BBC News share: 39.3% Sky + News Corp: 22.0% So 40% of the British viewers like the BBC in preference to Sky - but you'd see it done away with? Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 So 40% of the British viewers like the BBC in preference to Sky - but you'd see it done away with? Nice. 39.3% to 9% are the actual news intake figures for them (22% includes NewsCorp papers). I would see the BBC broken-up not "done away with". The problem is that, especially in terms of televisual share of news intake, the BBC is taking the piss and is a state-owned market dominator. That is fundamentally wrong. It should be exposed to proper competition like everyone else. It has an unhealthy and disproportionate market share. Every other set of TV channels individually contribute under 10% of news intake, and the BBC have a much larger share than ITV, ITN, Sky and Channel 5 put together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 39.3% to 9% are the actual news intake figures for them (22% includes NewsCorp papers). I would see the BBC broken-up not "done away with". The problem is that, especially in terms of televisual share of news intake, the BBC is taking the piss and is a state-owned market dominator. That is fundamentally wrong. It should be exposed to proper competition like everyone else. It has an unhealthy and disproportionate market share. Every other set of TV channels individually contribute under 10% of news intake, and the BBC have a much larger share than ITV, ITN, Sky and Channel 5 put together. Why? Why on the name of all that isn't market driven should it be? What is "fundamentally wrong" with a viwer funded, state licensed company? It's extremely succesfull. It sells its programming to dozens of countries. It launches UK TV actors into film careeres. It was the original global braodcaster. It's a huge success by any measure. Now that its own production units have been pared down, it also offers massive opportunities to independent production companies that don't want to make Big Brother. Just because it doesn't fit into the gospel according to Murdoch's market forces, where he is quite happy to take and rape other competitors and destroy them with a combination of advertising and political pressure does not make it unfair - it just means that he doesn't like the ball park. f**k him, and f**k the commercial imperative. The BBC works, and works well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Why? Why on the name of all that isn't market driven should it be? What is "fundamentally wrong" with a viewer funded, state licensed company? It's extremely successful. It sells its programming to dozens of countries. It launches UK TV actors into film careers. It was the original global broadcaster. It's a huge success by any measure. Now that its own production units have been pared down, it also offers massive opportunities to independent production companies that don't want to make Big Brother. It's fundamentally wrong because it's funded out of what amounts to a tax on television ownership. People have the choice not to use Murdoch's services; they then just don't pay a Sky subscription. If they want to view Murdoch's services but they don't want to view the state's services, they have to pay the state anyway. There are two fundamental issues here. The first is that a license is not the same as a subscription. The second is that, having taken public funds forcibly by taxation, the BBC is then distorts the market with biased reporting under the veil of impartiality, acting completely contrary to proper competition. If the BBC was such a good organisation it would still be able to produce this high-quality programming without the blatant institutional anti-competitive advantage it currently has. If anything it stifles high quality programming for other broadcasters. Just because it doesn't fit into the gospel according to Murdoch's market forces, where he is quite happy to take and rape other competitors and destroy them with a combination of advertising and political pressure does not make it unfair - it just means that he doesn't like the ball park. f**k him, and f**k the commercial imperative. The BBC works, and works well. That's not what happens with "Murdoch's Market Forces" at all. That's precisely the point. His organisations don't even have a quarter of the market share, and that ASSUMES he takes full ownership of BSkyB. The point is the BBC fundamentally harms competition by being so dominant that it has a televisual majority of news intake and an extremely comfortable plurality of total news intake. That is wrong. It is anti-democratic, anti-transparent, anti-impartiality, anti-pluralist and fundamentally wrong. The BBC works well BECAUSE of its institutional advantage. How you can possibly defend that institutional bias and retain any pretence of being a liberal escapes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 UK ministers 'wanted Lockerbie bomber released' ...The previous UK government did "all it could" to help facilitate the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a report on the case says. Sir Gus O'Donnell, the country's most senior civil servant, said there was an "underlying desire" to see Megrahi released before he died. But his report concluded that it was made clear to Libya that the final decision was up to Scottish ministers... Well Mr. Gray, over to you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Edit: and let's not forget that the BBC puts circa 85% of its newspaper recruitment advertising budget into The Guardian despite both The Times and The Daily Telegraph each having readership circa 50% larger and between them having more than 3 times the readership. Completely meaningless because the BBC will generally recruit from media specialists - and media specialists overwhelmingly read the Guardian. The way legitimate complaints against the BBC get mixed up with this kind of hysteria is great, it's almost as though they have another agenda! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Well we have to work on the basis that his conviction is a sound one. Because the state knows best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Because the state knows best! Eh no. Within the context of sentencing, a guilty verdict is a pre-requisite. Therefore the issues are distinct. That you even discuss the sanction in response to the crime pre-supposes that guilt, irrespective of who has found them guilty (be that a state or any other form of jurisdiction). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Completely meaningless because the BBC will generally recruit from media specialists - and media specialists overwhelmingly read the Guardian. The way legitimate complaints against the BBC get mixed up with this kind of hysteria is great, it's almost as though they have another agenda! Riiight. 100% of media specialist will be online. Why don't the BBC advertise jobs on their own website. It's not as if "media specialists" wouldn't have the gumption to look it up. Or maybe they are too busy wading through screeds of left wing shite in the Guardian to be arsed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Riiight. 100% of media specialist will be online. Why don't the BBC advertise jobs on their own website. It's not as if "media specialists" wouldn't have the gumption to look it up. Or maybe they are too busy wading through screeds of left wing shite in the Guardian to be arsed? Well, they do have a jobs section on their website, but it's hardly what you'd call well publicised. This "media types read The Guardian" just doesn't wash. Lefty-media: absolutely. Media writ large? I'd like to see the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Well, they do have a jobs section on their website, but it's hardly what you'd call well publicised. This "media types read The Guardian" just doesn't wash. Lefty-media: absolutely. Media writ large? I'd like to see the evidence. Maybe they should publicise it more. They are quick enough to blow their own trumpet about other stuff when it comes up their humph. They could save a fair bit of taxpayers money by not spunking it all over The Guardian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Well, they do have a jobs section on their website, but it's hardly what you'd call well publicised. This "media types read The Guardian" just doesn't wash. Lefty-media: absolutely. Media writ large? I'd like to see the evidence. What's "lefty-media," exactly? (Am I lefty-media?) Media people tend to be young, urban and educated, and often then have a reality bias, which manifests itself in their being to the left of yourself and Reynard. http://www.guardian.co.uk/advertising/jobs-advertising-media-sales-appointments The figures here are extremely impressive. And remember, the contention isn't even that every single media worker in the world, or even the UK, reads the Guardian: simply that it is read by huge swathes of the media (it is), certainly to a far greater extent than the Times and the Telegraph (also true), that it's the only daily with a weekly media section that's well-regarded in the media and is a recruitment hotspot not just for the BBC but for many major broadcasters and publishers (also true), and above all that the BBC are neither wasting money nor ignoring an important segment of the population by advertising in it. This is a fine example of what happens when some bedwetter posts an isolated stat on order-order, and it soon becomes accepted not only as relevant, but as some kind of smoking gun, by other bedwetters. Thes facts are that: 1) People who know anything about media know that media people in the UK overwhelmingly read the Guardian - in large part because the Guardian does far more comprehensive coverage of media than other dailies 2) People who know anything about advertising know that advertisers do not look at the raw number of readers, but rather at complex demographic data, before choosing a source in which to advertise. This is why there generally aren't adverts for stairlifts during Hollyoaks, but there are during whatever shit ITV is showing on Sunday nights these days 3) People who know anything about demographics know that young, urban, media professionals tend not to have conservative outlooks, and thus no matter where the BBC advertised its demographics would still follow 4) People who aren't butthurt, bitter communitarians aren't one step away from insisting on "conservative quotas" in the BBC to counter the scary liberal bias that is, er, not actually there. As Broccoli Dog has argued, the BBC has an establishment bias, and virtually no editorial voice of its own. It's completely fair to criticise it on that level - to pretend, though, that it's managed by a left-wing cabal is just absolute hysterical nonsense, usually propogated by people who would unabashedly politicise its editorial line in quite another direction if given half the chance. It's also very rich for a self-styled anarchist (read: creepy Salem communitarian) to complain about where advertising takes place. Presumably if the great unrepresented want a job with the BBC they can shell out the £1 or however much it is to get the Guardian each Monday, which nobody is preventing them from doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 What's "lefty-media," exactly? (Am I lefty-media?) Media people tend to be young, urban and educated, and often then have a reality bias, which manifests itself in their being to the left of yourself and Reynard. http://www.guardian....es-appointments The figures here are extremely impressive. And remember, the contention isn't even that every single media worker in the world, or even the UK, reads the Guardian: simply that it is read by huge swathes of the media (it is), certainly to a far greater extent than the Times and the Telegraph (also true), that it's the only daily with a weekly media section that's well-regarded in the media and is a recruitment hotspot not just for the BBC but for many major broadcasters and publishers (also true), and above all that the BBC are neither wasting money nor ignoring an important segment of the population by advertising in it. This is a fine example of what happens when some bedwetter posts an isolated stat on order-order, and it soon becomes accepted not only as relevant, but as some kind of smoking gun, by other bedwetters. Thes facts are that: 1) People who know anything about media know that media people in the UK overwhelmingly read the Guardian - in large part because the Guardian does far more comprehensive coverage of media than other dailies 2) People who know anything about advertising know that advertisers do not look at the raw number of readers, but rather at complex demographic data, before choosing a source in which to advertise. This is why there generally aren't adverts for stairlifts during Hollyoaks, but there are during whatever shit ITV is showing on Sunday nights these days 3) People who know anything about demographics know that young, urban, media professionals tend not to have conservative outlooks, and thus no matter where the BBC advertised its demographics would still follow 4) People who aren't butthurt, bitter communitarians aren't one step away from insisting on "conservative quotas" in the BBC to counter the scary liberal bias that is, er, not actually there. As Broccoli Dog has argued, the BBC has an establishment bias, and virtually no editorial voice of its own. It's completely fair to criticise it on that level - to pretend, though, that it's managed by a left-wing cabal is just absolute hysterical nonsense, usually propogated by people who would unabashedly politicise its editorial line in quite another direction if given half the chance. It's also very rich for a self-styled anarchist (read: creepy Salem communitarian) to complain about where advertising takes place. Presumably if the great unrepresented want a job with the BBC they can shell out the £1 or however much it is to get the Guardian each Monday, which nobody is preventing them from doing. The Guardian, the Mirror group and the BBC. Theres some other pish as well like TNS but its not worth a mention. And then there's The Morning Star :lol: All left wing c***s. All pushing for bigger state and more public spending. f**k them. And the BBC should be pushing the use of their own website for advertising jobs instead of propping up the heap of left wing shite that is The Guardian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Maybe they should publicise it more. They are quick enough to blow their own trumpet about other stuff when it comes up their humph. They could save a fair bit of taxpayers money by not spunking it all over The Guardian. Well, they need to advertise where the talent gathers, rather than on where the uninformed bedwetters feel is most politically correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 The Guardian, the Mirror group and the BBC. Theres some other pish as well like TNS but its not worth a mention. And then there's The Morning Star :lol: All left wing c***s. All pushing for bigger state and for bigger state. f**k them. You're bracketing the BBC with the Morning Star? Assuming that was just the poppers talking: what form does the BBC's "pushing for bigger state (sic)" and "for bigger state" take, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Well, they need to advertise where the talent gathers, rather than on where the uninformed bedwetters feel is most politically correct. No they don't. If these c***s are so fucking talented I'm sure they can click on a mouse. There really isn't any need for them to be wasting money advertising like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 You're bracketing the BBC with the Morning Star? Assuming that was just the poppers talking: what form does the BBC's "pushing for bigger state (sic)" and "for bigger state" take, exactly? Not really no. Hence the DOUBLE smilies!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.