A free and independent press?

[ArrowsFA1]

According to UK Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/03/jeremy-hunt-news-corp-sky-news)):
"Nothing is more precious to me than the free and independent press for which this country is famous the world over."

In January OFCOM's report "stated unequivocally that the Sky deal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2011/feb/16/news-corp-bskyb-bid?intcmp=239) would lead to fewer news providers and cement News Corp's dominant position."

News Corp have promised to spin off Sky News (while retaining a 39.1% stake) and it seems this is enough for Hunt to allow the Murdoch empire to take control of BSkyB.

Given the unprecedented reach of News Corp (here's a full list (http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=newscorp)) should we all not just in the UK) be concerned about a free and independent press, or are we happy for one organisation to have a dominant hold on the world's media?

[Dave B]

I love the way NI are claiming that Sky News will now be completely editorially independent - as if. It's losing £20 million per year so can't be sold in the conventional sense, nobody would be mad enough to buy it. Instead it's effectively going to be leased out, the Murdochs will still have massive influence. We're the only country in the world where one company owns so much of the media - even Italy thought twice about letting Berlusconi have so much power. :s

There's still a glimmer of hope: the deal looks like it will be challenged in the courts by rival media groups. But given the cosy relationship between the Murdoch family and our current insect overlords I don't hold out much hope. After Vince Cable showed himself to be utterly incompetent the decision was given to Jeremy *unt, who had a statement on his own website about how much he admires Rupert Murdoch - so much for objectivity. Then factor in the cosy lunches (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/24/cameron-murdoch-bskyb-news-corporation)between David Cameron and NI's Rebekkah Wade and James Murdoch; and the "secret" meeting (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/news/2010/05/21/pm-pay-back-to-murdoch-115875-22273847/)via the back door of No.10 - one of Cameron's very first acts as PM.

Give it 3 - 5 years and we'll have our very own version of Fox News, both on screen and in print. :(

[ArrowsFA1]

I love the way NI are claiming that Sky News will now be completely editorially independent - as if. It's losing £20 million per year so can't be sold in the conventional sense, nobody would be mad enough to buy it.(
A point just made by Lord Sugar:
Can't see how breaking Sky News out of BSKYB works it does not have enough revenue to maintain its running costs
http://twitter.com/#!/Lord_Sugar/status/43242166591553536

[Rollo]

Given the unprecedented reach of News Corp (here's a full list (http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=newscorp)) should we all not just in the UK) be concerned about a free and independent press, or are we happy for one organisation to have a dominant hold on the world's media?

If you check through the list of newspapers, you'll find that News Corp owns roughly 70% of all the newspapers in Australia, they own part of Foxtel, the Sky News network and Lachlan is on the board of Network 10 which is one of the five free-to-air TV networks.

There's very little "free and independent press" in Australia.

[Dave B]

ANDREW NEIL, FORMER EDITOR OF NEWS CORP-OWNED SUNDAY TIMES, SPEAKING TO BBC RADIO 4

"Rupert Murdoch, if he had one, would have sold his granny to get the rest of BSkyB. It's worth billions to his balance sheet so if he has to warehouse or spin off Sky News for a period, he's happy to do that.

"At some stage this (Sky News) could easily come back. I always smile when I see arrrangements the government has put in place that there will be independent directors in charge of things that Mr Murdoch has....we've seen it at The Times where the independent directors have never exercised their independence and we've seen it more recently when he bought the Wall Street Journal and the independent directors turned out there to be wholly useless.

"This gets him through a difficult period, it is not the end of Rupert Murdoch's connection with Sky News."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8358932/Reaction-to-Sky-News-spin-off.html

[Mark]

Give it 3 - 5 years and we'll have our very own version of Fox News, both on screen and in print. :(


Erm, we do! It's called Sky News :s .

IMO we need another proper news channel. Sky News is sensationalist pap, and the BBC is, well, the BBC and all that entails.
ITV had a news channel for a while, but as everyone knows ITV news is absolutely terrible. Yet, Channel 4 news, which is also produced by ITN, the same people responsible for ITV News is usually very good!

I think a channel like "4News" would be very welcome, with an emphasis on in depth analysis and reporting rather than the 'rolling news' format of BBC and Sky.

[Dave B]

Sky's actual "news" output is actually pretty decent, it's only let down by them continually giving airtime to the likes of John Gaunt or James Whale, and giving egomaniacs like Adam Boulton and Kay Burley their own shows.

Agreed about ITV news, it's like the Daily Mail read aloud, all populist drivel and human interest stories. C4 news is an example of how to get it right, Jon Snow and Krishnan Guru Murphy are excellent journalists, but I'm not sure how their investigation-led format would lend itself to rolling news.

[Mark]

. C4 news is an example of how to get it right, Jon Snow and Krishnan Guru Murphy
are excellent journalists, but I'm not sure how their investigation-led format would lend itself to rolling news.

A good point. Channel 4 news is one of the few news broadcasts that I'll actually sit down and watch, unlike the rest where it's usually on in the background while I'm having my dinner, browsing the forum etc.

[ArrowsFA1]

Ivan Lewes on BBC news: 'the nature of our media determines the nature of our democracy' Discuss..
http://twitter.com/#!/NakedLDN/status/43295843717095424

[donKey jote]

My favourite news is Channel 4's 10 O'Clock live... shame it's only once a week :p

[anthonyvop]

If you check through the list of newspapers, you'll find that News Corp owns roughly 70% of all the newspapers in Australia, they own part of Foxtel, the Sky News network and Lachlan is on the board of Network 10 which is one of the five free-to-air TV networks.

There's very little "free and independent press" in Australia.

How is it not free and independent? Does the Australian Government censure the press?

A free an independent press means without restriction by government. Something that isn't allowed in the UK as they restrict who can or cannot own media outlets.

[wedge]

Sky's actual "news" output is actually pretty decent, it's only let down by them continually giving airtime to the likes of John Gaunt or James Whale, and giving egomaniacs like Adam Boulton and Kay Burley their own shows.

Agreed about ITV news, it's like the Daily Mail read aloud, all populist drivel and human interest stories. C4 news is an example of how to get it right, Jon Snow and Krishnan Guru Murphy are excellent journalists, but I'm not sure how their investigation-led format would lend itself to rolling news.

C4 does good reporting but its leftist agenda can be grating at times. I remember when Honda F1 launched their earth livery and it became good excuse for Snow or whoever it was to launch a biased attack on F1.

[Rollo]

A free an independent press means without restriction by government.

If that's you're criteria, then I suppose that the press is "free and independent". Under you're criteria if only one private firm happened to own every media outlet, would the media still be "free and independent"?

[anthonyvop]

If that's you're criteria, then I suppose that the press is "free and independent". Under you're criteria if only one private firm happened to own every media outlet, would the media still be "free and independent"?


Of course it is free and independent press as long as another media out could be created if the market demanded it.

Actually with the rise of the internet only the most restrictive of governments like North Korea and Cuba can prevent the dissemination of opposing views.

[Rollo]

Actually with the rise of the internet only the most restrictive of governments like North Korea and Cuba can prevent the dissemination of opposing views.

Government isn't likely to prevent the dissemination of opposing views. The fact that 90% of most people are "induhviduals" will do that quite happily. Most people don't think for themselves. Why else would so many inane television shows dominate the airwaves for?


Of course it is free and independent press as long as another media out could be created if the market demanded it.

Oligopolistic competition generally although isn't illegal, certainly doesn't make the market more competitive; in fact quite the opposite. Smaller firms get pushed to the margins.

[veeten]

Reasons as to why you have to love the Internet, as it is not 'regulated' by any government, individual or in collusion, nor 'owned' by any corporation, in the same sense. It's the last, and quite possibly only, 'free and independent' source that we have.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Of course it is free and independent press as long as another media out could be created if the market demanded it.
.

So one man owning a huge number of newspapers and news channels is free and independent? What difference does it make if that man is the leader of a nation or leader of a news business?

[Rollo]

So one man owning a huge number of newspapers and news channels is free and independent? What difference does it make if that man is the leader of a nation or leader of a news business?

Apparently it doesn't matter if you're Mr Vop:


Of course it is free and independent press as long as another media out could be created if the market demanded it.

A free an independent press means without restriction by government.

As a result of asking the same question, I draw the conclusion that one person is allowed to own everything provided they aren't "government".
Of course is does beg the question if he sees a difference between government by democracy and government by coporation.

[Roamy]

Apparently it doesn't matter if you're Mr Vop:




As a result of asking the same question, I draw the conclusion that one person is allowed to own everything provided they aren't "government".
Of course is does beg the question if he sees a difference between government by democracy and government by coporation.

so I guess where you are going here is there is no difference in CNN manipulating the media or the government. Well ok but if the government regulates who gets to put out media then that is obviously bullish!t. Usually Gov run media surprises everything else. I think if you want to do media put it out there and see if you get any takers.

[ArrowsFA1]

so I guess where you are going here is there is no difference in CNN manipulating the media or the government. Well ok but if the government regulates who gets to put out media then that is obviously bullish!t.
All of which kind of brings us back to where we started.

Murdoch, who campaigned for our current PM in last years election via his various media outlets, has recently been able to increase his influence on the media in the UK. Healthy? I don't think so. Cosy? Definately.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

An example of Rupert Murdochs papers
http://hotterthanapileofcurry.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/the-sun-uk-election-day-2010-newspaper-front-pages.jpg?w=385&h=498