Murdoch son: BBC threatens independent journalism

[Shuimo]

Isn't this a bold accusation against the BBC?
Do you think BBC is really a trust-wrothy media organization independent of the British government meddling?
Do you think the same as Murdoch son about this?:)




Murdoch son says BBC, a News Corp. competitor, threatens independent journalism


On Saturday August 29, 2009, 10:59 am EDT
EDINBURGH, Scotland (AP) -- The son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch has called the British Broadcasting Corp. a threat to independent journalism.
James Murdoch, the 36-year-old executive in charge of News Corp.'s businesses in Europe and Asia, spoke late Friday at the Edinburgh International Television Festival -- 20 years after his father delivered a keynote speech at the same event.
"In this all-media marketplace, the expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy," Murdoch said.
The BBC is subsidized by the British government and funded, in part, by television licenses that consumers must pay if they use a television.
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. controls British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC, one of the BBC's main competitors in Britain.
"As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion," Murdoch said, referring to George Orwell's book, "1984."
He said broadcasting policy had failed to keep pace with changes, relying on regulation and intervention from the state rather than empowering consumers.
Greg Dyke, the BBC's former director general, said Murdoch's argument was "fundamentally flawed."
"Journalism is going through a very difficult time -- not only in this country but every country in the world because newspapers, radio and television in the commercial world are all having a very rough time," he said.
Dyke said it was not the fault of the BBC that the recession and loss of advertising revenues had hampered news organizations.
Last month, a journalist told a British parliamentary committee that James Murdoch approved an out-of-court payment to settle a controversial phone hacking case.
News of the World editor Colin Myler said that Murdoch was told that 700,000 pounds ($1.1 million) would be paid to settle a case against the company.
The suit was brought by Gordon Taylor, head of the Professional Footballers' Association, one of the targets of the hacking.
The allegations against the News of the World, part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. empire, have been waged as part of a wider scandal concerning journalistic abuses.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Murdoch-son-BBC-threatens-apf-1173930408.html?x=0

[Zarak]

I don't know whether or not its accurate regarding the affairs of the UK as I am not a British Subject. But, BBC World is the only news I watch on television - it fairly accurately reports the important things that are occurring in the world (which American news providers completely fail to do).

[Shuimo]

I don't know whether or not its accurate regarding the affairs of the UK as I am not a British Subject. But, BBC World is the only news I watch on television - it fairly accurately reports the important things that are occurring in the world (which American news providers completely fail to do).
What is CNN all about?

[tercio67]

What is CNN all about?

Infotainment

[Zarak]

What is CNN all about?

Michael Jackson and what the First Lady is wearing. Its basically a joke. They couldn't report any less real news if they tried (and I actually believe they are trying).

[Dave242]

The words Kettle, Frying Pan, and Black come to mind. News Corp this is a company that bend's over backwards to appease the Chinese government, Via Star TV.

So for him to come out with this. One must ask is he trying to hard to please Daddy??

Dave

[Lov3ll]

Murdoch complaining about media manipulation and distortion? really? rofl
The BBCs fine, it's state owned not state controlled, I've never heard of the government interfering with the BBC, it's not like Iran or china where the government can censor anything they disagree with.

[Shuimo]

Infotainment

Sort of!
Actually both BBC and CNN are on the top list of my must-watch channels for outside world information!
I notice that one sharp difference btw the two is the style of the news presenters.

CNN seems to me to have actor-turned presenters with quite dramatic facial expressions and plentiful body language, to the effect of being amusing at times, presenting quite a contrast to the usually calm- (or stony- )faced BBC anchors!:)

[Zarak]

Sort of!
Actually both BBC and CNN are on the top list of my must-watch channels for outside world information!
I notice that one sharp different btw the two is the style of the news presenters.

CNN seems to me to have actor-turned presenters with quite dramatic facial expressions and body language, to the effect of being amusing at times, presenting quite a contrast to the usually calm-(or stony- )faced BBC anchors!:)

CNN International? They show different things to the world than they show to us plebes who apparently only care about celebrity fashion.

[Shuimo]

CNN International? They show different things to the world than they show to us plebes who apparently only care about celebrity fashion.

Sure!

Perhaps they are using differentiating strategies to appeal to different types of audience?

[Ordie]

Newspapers and media outlets are suffering due to competition from Criagslist for advertising revenues. Moreover, they are losing subscriptions and circulation from the Internet.

These are revenues that support independent journalism and investigative reporting that keeps governments honest. The BBC is funded by Britons through licence fees, but they have a fiduciary responsibility to it's viewers and listeners free from government interference in content.

There are some newssources that has taken a post newspaper model in terms of reporting. Propublica and globalpost comes to mind. These are sources to ensure nothing is missed with the absence of foriegn bureaus and local watchdog reporting.

[Shuimo]

Michael Jackson and what the First Lady is wearing. Its basically a joke. They couldn't report any less real news if they tried (and I actually believe they are trying).


I guess the whole media world should be ashamed of themselves for putting on such a circus over MJ's passing away!

[Ordie]

Sure!

Perhaps they are using differentiating strategies to appeal to different types of audience?

TV news viewership is declining in the US including CNN. To keep viewership high enough to attract ad revenues, they are getting nutjobs such as Lou Dobbs to create an eco chamber.

Shuimo, CNN is considered outdated.
Many Americans get thier news through NPR or local sources.

[Ordie]

I guess the whole media world should be ashamed of themselves for putting on such a circus over MJ's passing away!

Not really
If it isn't tragic enough, they would lose money.

[Atlantic Friend]

"In this all-media marketplace, the expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy," Murdoch said.

I'm all for plurality and independence, but I'll confess that when it comes to journalism I'd prefer veracity. And the idea that modern democracies could one day have to try to survive without Mr Murdoch's press is...it's all too much! ;)

[Shuimo]

Newspapers and media outlets are suffering due to competition from Criagslist for advertising revenues. Moreover, they are losing subscriptions and circulation from the Internet.

These are revenues that support independent journalism and investigative reporting that keeps governments honest. The BBC is funded by Britons through licence fees, but they have a fiduciary responsibility to it's viewers and listeners free from government interference in content.

There are some newssources that has taken a post newspaper model in terms of reporting. Propublica and globalpost comes to mind. These are sources to ensure nothing is missed with the absence of foriegn bureaus and local watchdog reporting.

After all, we are embracing the Internet age!
Chinese press world is also crying wolf coming!
We youngsers are now just incurably addicted to the Internet!
I myself have long been a non-viewer of CCTV since a long time ago!

To get independent sources and views of what is going on in China, I think the Internet with all its vibrating blogs and forums is the best tool available to us!
Every year there are reports lambating about the dwindling reading rate among the Chinese public! But whose fault is that?

Should be time for celebration!

PS: Magazines about youth fashions and designs are the only kind of printing stuff I still regularly buy!:)

[szr]

Do you think BBC is really a trust-wrothy media organization independent of the British government meddling?I think there are really two different questions, here. To answer the second part, I'm not really concerned about government interference at the BBC.

[Drain-O]

No member of the Murdoch family has any room to speak about "independent journalism" unless they are giving advice on how to kill it.

[Shuimo]

TV news viewership is declining in the US including CNN. To keep viewership high enough to attract ad revenues, they are getting nutjobs such as Lou Dobbs to create an eco chamber.

Shuimo, CNN is considered outdated.
Many Americans get thier news through NPR or local sources.

I feel there is nothing lamentable about it for us ordinary audience!
Only these profit-minded media moguls are crying!

TV news always stinks of willed manipulation with its inherent one-way communication! Once you turn on the box, you have to sit down for whatever crappy stuff they force-feed you!

CNN is a resounding name in China, unfortunately!

[Shuimo]

I've never heard of the government interfering with the BBC, it's not like china where the government can censor anything they disagree with.

That is a poignant fact about CCTV, the biggest mouthpiece of the CPC!

[rgjbloke]

James Murdoch is just setting his stall out to please daddy and seeing as how he was speaking in Edinburgh, that means bashing the public sector funded BBC and praising the private sector, in particular News Corporation, as being the standard bearers in a free and pluralistic press. Load of Codswallop. You name any of the dirty tricks that have taken place in the name of a free and puralistic press, News Corporation probably had their grubby fingers in it up to the hilt somewhere. The recent telephone hacking scandal is just the very tip of the iceberg. His speech is about putting even more money into News Corporation's coffers. The BBC has it's problems but in many way's, it does set very high standards in journalism that others are forced to follow. It certainly doesn't need to take any notice of daddy's boy.

[Shuimo]

Not really
If it isn't tragic enough, they would lose money.

Miserable money-grubbers!

Losing no opportunity to make money out of other's tragic death when there are countless other weighty issues and happenings crying for attention of the world!

[Shuimo]

No member of the Murdoch family has any room to speak about "independent journalism" unless they are giving advice on how to kill it.

Why do you guys insistently hold the Murdoch family in such abhorrence and bias?:)

[Shuimo]

James Murdoch is just setting his stall out to please daddy and seeing as how he was speaking in Edinburgh, that means bashing the public sector funded BBC and praising the private sector, in particular News Corporation, as being the standard bearers in a free and pluralistic press. Load of Codswallop. You name any of the dirty tricks that have taken place in the name of a free and puralistic press, News Corporation probably had their grubby fingers in it up to the hilt somewhere. The recent telephone hacking scandal is just the very tip of the iceberg. His speech is about putting even more money into News Corporation's coffers. The BBC has it's problems but in many way's, it does set very high standards in journalism that others are forced to follow. It certainly doesn't need to take any notice of daddy's boy.

Then BBC becomes the bearer of independent journalism in a free and pluralistic press??

I think Murdoch son has asked a valid question concerning the RIGHT relations btw gov and media!

Without the media marketforces, BBC wudn't feel any pressure for high quality progamming either!

It is also heard that the BBC has also had a less-than-good reputation as the auntie of Britons!

[Ordie]

Many of the articles I post originate from print media. Newspapers and magazine are more accessible in terms of reading. With a newspaper, one can glance through many articles of different subjects such as sports, travel and opinion.

You may or may not read it, but at least you have some understanding in what is going on. You cannot do the same over the Internet thus becoming myopic on current events.

Murdoch has nothing go complain about. They own Fox News and Wall Street Journal.

[rgjbloke]

Then BBC becomes the bearer of independent journalism in a free and pluralistic press??

I think Murdoch son has asked a valid question concerning the RIGHT relations btw gov and media!

Without the media marketforces, BBC wudn't feel any pressure for high quality progamming either!

It is also heard that the BBC has also had a less-than-good reputation as the auntie of Britons!

The BBC are amongst other things, another news organisation. I haven't dressed them up as standard bearers in anything in anyway. I have said they do have high standards but I also did admit, they are not always perfect, by that I mean consistant, but then, what major news organisation is. All I have said is I think the BBC are one of the better ones, but that's just my opinion.

Nobody, including the BBC has said there shouldn't be market forces. Market forces are what makes the world go around and that includes the media. Although the BBC is mainly public funded, it is subject to very stringent financial controls in what money it receives and how it spends it. It also is subject to very stringent controls on what it does and how it does it. A major feature of these controls is that it operates competitively and does not have any advantage over any of it's competitors in the private sector. If it didn't perform to it's stringently set remit on service delivery and budgetary control, the Government would probably pull the plug, certainly on how it is currently constituted.

All of this is done quite transparently through an independent controlling body without any political control by the government. Take that and the financial and service delivery comittments that it has into account, and, in a sense, the BBC is subject to market forces, allbeit, not in the private sector.

One of the major reason's for having the BBC as a public funded body is that it performs a major public service by providing a tremendous amount of programming, particularly in the educational sector, for the public that simply wouldn't be there if the public had to rely purely on the private sector.

News Corporation owns a very considerably large section of the media here in Britain including several major titles in the newspaper business and a significant holding in the broadcasting sector through Sky TV which includes Sky News. I cannot understate the considerable influence of News Corporation because of those holdings, and, as a result, they probably have a significantly much larger influence over the British public than the BBC, or auntie beeb as you put it. Given those facts, I don't think anybody who lives here in Britain would deny that, News Corporation, has in the past used it's extensive media holdings here to successfully sway public opinion, and, I expect, given the nature of the beast, they will continue to do so whenever it suits them in the future.

Rupert Murdoch when he was more hands on here liked to get his own way and he mostly did, at the cost of thousands of jobs of other people. Some might say, that's progress. That might be fair comment but for many people, those times were very acrimonious and a lot of people haven't forgotten them. News Corporation and Young James Murdoch through the offices of his father, already have considerable clout here in Britain. The BBC are not the problem!

[Ordie]

Old man Murdoch lost a ton a money in China, but found his wife there.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Mini-Murdoch can fcuk right off.
He's almost as big a bag of sh1te as his old man

[brainplay]

The BBCs fine, it's state owned not state controlled

How do you know its not been tampered with? Hutton Inquiry anyone?


it fairly accurately reports the important things that are occurring in the world (which American news providers completely fail to do).

The level of PC'ness is...high and feels stilted. Still debating if BBC or BBC America is better.


In August 2007, searches on Wikipedia Scanner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Scanner) revealed that many edits to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) had been made from IP addresses assigned to the BBC, including one vandalising the article on U.S. President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) by changing his middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker)".[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#cite_note-70)

Comedy gold. p-)

[GazB]

I used to watch the BBC for most of my world news but two things pretty much stopped me. Because of the location of New Zealand (ie in Asia... technically New Zealand and Australia for Australasia) we get the BBC Asian news which if you follow my interests you might note is not high on my list. The second problem has been a noticeable bias against Russia. When that guy was found to have been poisoned by Polonium it was immediately assumed Putin himself was behind it. Considering the cost per gram of the stuff and the fact that it was detected everywhere the dead man went yet it wasn't present everywhere the so called accused man went suggests to me that the guy who died was probably smuggling the stuff and contaminated himself and on his death bed wanted to incriminate his political enemies. Anyway regardless of the truth from the first mention on the BBC and CNN for that matter Putin was always mentioned as the likely source. No other possibilities were even considered. Talk about trial by media.

Rupert Murdochs son criticising the BBC on ethics is like Hitler criticising the Dalai Lama for his violent agenda. The BBC is far from perfect but (Fox) cupie dolls with big ****s are no substitute for real journalism.

[DPM_Sheep]

In August 2007, searches on Wikipedia Scanner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Scanner) revealed that many edits to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) had been made from IP addresses assigned to the BBC, including one vandalising the article on U.S. President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) by changing his middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker)".[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#cite_note-70)

Comedy gold. p-)

Probably originated from the Top Gear office... :)

[LazerLordz]

Probably originated from the Top Gear office... :)

I love those fellas. rofl

[Shuimo]

Many of the articles I post originate from print media. Newspapers and magazine are more accessible in terms of reading. With a newspaper, one can glance through many articles of different subjects such as sports, travel and opinion.

You may or may not read it, but at least you have some understanding in what is going on. You cannot do the same over the Internet thus becoming myopic on current events.

That is a very good point!:)
That is kinda of "one-glance-taking-in-all" effect!
I also think that is the most important reason that paper-made books will never be replaced by e-books or any other electric tools!
Magazines, newspapers & books can always deliver to you a feeling of full dimensionalness that would never be satisfied through computer reading!

There is one more big advantage of printing material over electric material on the Internet: printing stuff is always on the safer sider insofar as storage is concerned, though it takes space!

Information on the computer or the Internet can be highly transient!
Sth you keep in yr favourite box may be gone or deleted without yr knowing it!




Murdoch has nothing go complain about. They own Fox News and Wall Street Journal.


I think Murdoch son's main beef is the teeth of state-controlled media like BBC give commercially-operated media organizations trying times simply because of the unequal footing the former has over the latter: state-sponsored !

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Why do you guys insistently hold the Murdoch family in such abhorrence and bias?:)

It was Kieth Murdoch who started the publishing empire. But get this. Not only was he in charge of his own paper but he was put in charge of Australia's WW2 censorship.

[LEGEND]

I used to watch the BBC for most of my world news but two things pretty much stopped me. Because of the location of New Zealand (ie in Asia... technically New Zealand and Australia for Australasia) we get the BBC Asian news which if you follow my interests you might note is not high on my list. The second problem has been a noticeable bias against Russia. When that guy was found to have been poisoned by Polonium it was immediately assumed Putin himself was behind it. Considering the cost per gram of the stuff and the fact that it was detected everywhere the dead man went yet it wasn't present everywhere the so called accused man went suggests to me that the guy who died was probably smuggling the stuff and contaminated himself and on his death bed wanted to incriminate his political enemies. Anyway regardless of the truth from the first mention on the BBC and CNN for that matter Putin was always mentioned as the likely source. No other possibilities were even considered. Talk about trial by media.

Rupert Murdochs son criticising the BBC on ethics is like Hitler criticising the Dalai Lama for his violent agenda. The BBC is far from perfect but (Fox) cupie dolls with big ****s are no substitute for real journalism.

US Govt doesn't pay for FOX news, and thats the big difference that Murdoch is criticising when compared to BBC or ORT or RTN or RTR or any other Russian news channel for that matter. Any of the Russian channels which are all controlled by the state would never even remotely criticize Putin or give an alternative view. So Murdoch is saying that if BBC continues with the government funding, it might turn into something similar to Russian ORT.

[Corrupt]

I love those fellas. rofl

He's probably just jealous they're owned by the BBC and not him :P

[Eye]

The BBCs fine, it's state owned not state controlled, I've never heard of the government interfering with the BBC, it's not like Iran or china where the government can censor anything they disagree with.
IMHO it's not possible that owner doesn't interfere in his property.

[Dave242]

IMHO it's not possible that owner doesn't interfere in his property.

We the tax payers do not interfere in the day to day running of the BBC. The BBC is run by the BBC Trust www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/)

The only reason why Elliot Caver's;-) son has said what he said, is he want's to line Daddy's pockets, and give him more power. And trying to prove to Daddy i am the son, who should run your company when you go.

Dave

[Corrupt]

IMHO it's not possible that owner doesn't interfere in his property.

Fair point, but remember the BBC hasnt been censored or anything by the ruling parties in the last few dacades, whichever side is in power, the BBC continues to provide mostly accurate and impartial journalism along with some high quality programs

[Estopped]

US Govt doesn't pay for FOX news, and thats the big difference that Murdoch is criticising when compared to BBC or ORT or RTN or RTR or any other Russian news channel for that matter. Any of the Russian channels which are all controlled by the state would never even remotely criticize Putin or give an alternative view. So Murdoch is saying that if BBC continues with the government funding, it might turn into something similar to Russian ORT.

Fox news was just as bad when Bush was in power.

Personally after watching American news I'm even more grateful we have the BBC. Murdoch is just pissed because he can't have his own version of fox news in England and drop to the lowest common denominator of news. he complains about the position of the BBC and it's advantage; but you'll never see him complaining about Sky's dominance or the power of newscorp in pushing its agenda.

It has nothing to do with government tyrrany.

[nemowork]

Fair point, but remember the BBC hasnt been censored or anything by the ruling parties in the last few dacades, whichever side is in power, the BBC continues to provide mostly accurate and impartial journalism along with some high quality programs

The most blatant example is probably Tony Blair trying to shut up the reporting on David Kelly/Iraqi WMDs and getting Andrew Gilligan sacked.

Its more about the Government of the day persuading or forcing the BBC to censor itself, fortunately the BBC has so many departments, governing bodies and independent contractors getting them to all follow one set line is about as productive as herding cats.

[Ulytau]

Murdoch son: We want to buy BBC even every media,we wanna win money and wanna hyptonize people with our useless newsJust a simple google search can show clearly how they are about the free journalism,especially if its aganist them.

[Lov3ll]

Murdoch is just pissed because he can't have his own version of fox news in England and drop to the lowest common denominator of news.

The sad thing is he probably could, he owns both the scum and news of the world they make the daily mail seem respectable, the news of the world campaigns against pedos while having 16 yr old models pose topless, the sun doesn't even claim to be unbiased they usually support whichever politcal group looks like their going to win, then claims it was entirely down to the sun and their readers, I'd piss my self if he lost all his money and all of his ****e papers went bankrupt.

[LEGEND]

Personally after watching American news I'm even more grateful we have the BBC. news in England and drop to the lowest common denominator of news. he complains about the position of the BBC and it's advantage; but you'll never see him complaining about Sky's dominance or the power of newscorp in pushing its agenda.

It has nothing to do with government tyrrany.

Nobody said anything about government tyranny. He complains about government sponsorship which is an unfair market practice and also has the possibility of government pushing its own agenda through the news that they sponsor.

[martinexsquaddie]

pot calling kettle colour check over.

[the_13th_redneck]

Really stupid.
The BBC does not spew government propaganda.

[Estopped]

Nobody said anything about government tyranny. He complains about government sponsorship which is an unfair market practice and also has the possibility of government pushing its own agenda through the news that they sponsor.

The BBC does have its own checks and balances.

Murdoch has his own agenda and this has been shown time and time again.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

The most blatant example is probably Tony Blair trying to shut up the reporting on David Kelly/Iraqi WMDs and getting Andrew Gilligan sacked.

Its more about the Government of the day persuading or forcing the BBC to censor itself, fortunately the BBC has so many departments, governing bodies and independent contractors getting them to all follow one set line is about as productive as herding cats.

Every UK government I can recall during my adult lifetime (and probably earlier ones too) has had major fallings out with the BBC about something or other. To claim they are a propaganda arm of the UK government is completely ludicrous (unless you live in the parallel universe known as MurdochWorld) :roll:

[domokun]

Personally I think it's good that there is both public media and private media. Private media works as watch dog for government and public as watch dog for private corporations. Yes, public media costs tax money or something similar like licensing fees. Reality is that in most of cases public media has bunch of safeguards and laws to keep it from being too directly controlled by parties that are currently in power, bureaucratic inertia prevents too fast changes to journalism. Good side of bureaucracy working for benefit of democracy. In general public media outlets seem to more objective than private media in their publication line, of course commonsense and media criticism applies to public media too. Everything from both sides must be taken with grain of salt.

[happyslapper]

It's pretty ridiculous to have a Murdoch of all people criticising the BBC!

Personally I hold the BBC in very high regard, if there was a story I needed to know, it would be on the BBC in very short order. If there was something I wanted to know, the BBC would be my first call (but as ever, it should never be the only source to look at).

The fact that the BBC is held in such high esteem not just among Britons or English-speaking folk, but worldwide speaks volumes about the standard of journalism it provides.

As a point of interest, I remember some statistic about Afghanis, saying that the BBC World Service was the most listened to radio station in the country from pre-Taleban times right up until today. Considering the amount of power the corporation actually holds, it's very impressive that they have managed to maintain such impartiality (in spite of Murdoch's comments).

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It's pretty ridiculous to have a Murdoch of all people criticising the BBC!

Personally I hold the BBC in very high regard, if there was a story I needed to know, it would be on the BBC in very short order. If there was something I wanted to know, the BBC would be my first call (but as ever, it should never be the only source to look at).

The fact that the BBC is held in such high esteem not just among Britons or English-speaking folk, but worldwide speaks volumes about the standard of journalism it provides.

As a point of interest, I remember some statistic about Afghanis, saying that the BBC World Service was the most listened to radio station in the country from pre-Taleban times right up until today. Considering the amount of power the corporation actually holds, it's very impressive that they have managed to maintain such impartiality (in spite of Murdoch's comments).

I agree.

Personally I think it is good that both the BBC and Murdoch's organization have each other to compete with. Competition is good for both as it provides the impetus to keep standards high for all concerned.

[khukuri]

Id rather listen to the bbc than any of murdochs news channels... He just hates the fact that there is something publicly controlled.

[timetraveller]

The BBC does have its own checks and balances.

Murdoch has his own agenda and this has been shown time and time again.

That is Profit margin's getting his mits on everything that he can ..


They maybe the Murdoch's but let's be honest they haven't got a clue of the amount of crap that's shown on SKY period which they own because they only care about is the bank balance if they actually gave too hoots of programme quailty Foxnews and his various other Media outlets wouldn't be as bad nor would see the crap being spewed on that channel and some of the presenters would be giving the dan mack !!!

Rupert Murdoch and his Son will reach the Status of Bill Cotton

I for one will never pay a fee to watch Sky period

And this has all come about because a Paper they owned were caught breaking the law by hacking into Famous people mobile phone's looking for a story that isn't investigative reporting by any means !!
And if that's his view of what Investigative Journalisim it show's how thick they are ..