Murdoch and Blair vs, the BBC to "Foxify" British media

[Armstead]

As in the US, the phony "liberalism" of centrists seems to be working with right-wong corporate interests to sell a nation down the river.

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/mcalert194.shtml

Rupert vs. the BBC -- The 'Foxification' of Britain

By Dame Anita Roddick
MediaChannel.org

LONDON, October 23, 2003 -- If you live any decent amount of time in the USA, as I do, broadcast media will drive you nuts. So it's been fascinating watching what has been going on in our media over the past few months. The attacks on the BBC by Tony Blair and his government, joinging forces with Rupert Murdoch and his executives at BSkyB, must be viewed in the context of what's already become a fait accompli in the United States -- the diminution of public space, especially public broadcasting space, by the ever more powerful forces of privatization.

<snip>

Not surprisingly, then, Rupert Murdoch and his political cronies have begun to lay the groundwork for an all-out assault on the BBC and the annual fee. While they will probably not be able to eliminate it, their endless attacks, slanted polls, and political pressuring may well result in a lessening of the amount the BBC gets annually, thus weakening the BEEB as a 'public' competitor to all private interests, but especially to the multi-channel Murdochian news and entertainment network BSkyB.

All this must be viewed through the prism of what otherwise appears the oddest of couplings: Rupert and Tony Blair. Blair first became Prime Minister owing in large measure to the endorsements of the traditionally right wing Murdoch press. It now seems apparent that Blair made a devilish pact years ago to garner Murdoch's support, despite their obvious political differences, and Murdoch is now collecting his payback on the instalment plan.

MORE

[ProgressiveBrit]

1. Yes, it's been happening for a while

Yes, many of us in Britain have been worried about this for quite a while now. We've seen some examples of the Americanisation of the media in Britain in the past few months and indeed years (one example of this being the date format changing - I have always used the same way of expressing a date as many others were taught at schools to do, that is day/month/year format, ever since the 11th September 2001 however, it is very noticeable that presenters are using the month/day format when expressing dates - it may not seem like a very big thing to many, but to many of us who have been taught the British way of expressing dates, this is another example of the mass media attempting to control our entire culture, and change it) however we do seem to get a wider range of views expressed in the mainstream media over here, I believe the Guardian (a left wing british newspaper) is on its way to the US, you should like that!

Oh, by the way, please feel free to take a look at the Justice, Peace, democracy group as well anyone who maybe interested is welcome to take part in discussions there as well, you can see it at http://groups.msn.com/justicepeacedemocracy.
All the best

[AP]

2. BBC and Murdoch and Blair -- triangulated animosity.

To be clear, they all have different interests.

Blair threatened to revoke Sky's license for playing stirring music over Iraq bombing footage. He doesn't like Sky, and he as no interest in selling any part of the BBC or ITC to Murdoch.

However, the EU has told the UK that the gov't can't subsidize the entertainment aspects of the TV production. The EU abides by a general principle that governments can't subsidize private commercial activities. Since there are many private producers of filmed entertainment in Europe, the UK's public subidy of British media creats an unfair public subsidy which hurts everyone else's ability to compete.

So, Labour is taking the first baby steps towards ending this anti-competitive subsidy. Sky likes this, because they don't like competing with the BBC. However, Sky doesn't want anyone competing with them. That isn't Labour's plan either.

As for the BBC, they'd probably like it if the gov't sold off the assets to their insiders at cut rate prices, like the Tories did with the rail and train companies. Labour isn't going to do that either. They're looking for market value for these assets because they look after the interests of the people, not just the interests of the super wealthy.

[Armstead]

5. That makes it worse

I'm not against the idea of greater European unity. However, telling nations that they have to bow down to the corporate masters (i.e.privitization) is just anotehr example of why the corporate right-wing model of "globalization" and "free trade" are scams.

Why can nations decide what role their own governments will play in the marketplace. While it is difficult to justify "Ground Force," if the BBC did not fund "entertainment" programming, that nation would have been deprived of great dramas and otehr worthy cultural programming over the years.

These policies are nothing but an instritutionalized, internationalized form of Bush/GOP/Right-Wing/Corporatist policies being imposed on the world.

[AP]

7. You're so wrong.

This is the DEMOCRATIC and LIBERAL thing to do. Countries can't pick favorite private industries to prop up. It's not fair to legitimate competitors within that country, and to competitors outside the country.

This same rule would prevetn, for eg, a situation where the US gives huge contracts and tax breaks to Haliburton and Enron.

The bottom line is that if a company engages in the private marketplace (which is what ENTERTAINMENT production and distribution is), then they can't get handouts from the government designed to help that one company.

Furthermore, when the government stops propping up the entertainment stuff, they can spend more money on the news stuff, which is allowed by the EU -- the government can subsidize non-commercial news production and distribution.

Great dramas are produced in the US withou public funding, by the way.

[Armstead]

12. It's the Republican Neo-Liberal thing to do

I agree that there should not be corporate welfare. But with certain basic services, the government has a perfectly legitimate role.

It's like healthcare. By turning a basic human need completely over to the private sector, we in the US are literally killing ourselves -- or at least killing the increasing millions of peopole who can;pt afford to dance to the insurance/healthcare corporations' tune.

Communications is the same way. Without mechanisisms to counterbalance the commercial media monopolists, we are descending into a cultural and social snakepit in this country where Fear Factor becomes the standard.

[AP]

22. Entertainment production is NOT communications. I agree that airwaves

should be publicly owned, and I agree that there should be a non-commercial source of news.

But don't you see that the reason the US has dominated the world with entertainment, ranging from the crappiest crap to the best independant cinema is BECAUSE there's a competitive free market which encourages people to try harder to produce better stuff.

There are some things a well-regulated market does much better than a gov't subsidized anti-competitive market in which a bunch of bureaucrats decide what should and shouln't get made with taxpayer money which they have no say over how it gets invested.

The debate over the BBC isn't about news. It's about entertainment production. The BBC likes to pretend it's about news, but it isn't.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Can you point us at this EU decision?

I can't work out from your posts if it applies to film, TV, or both.

[AP]

23. It applies to entertainment production and distribution -- TV and film.

I read the directive (I believe) about 5 years ago. I'm looking for it right now.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Citation?

Provide a cite that this is about the EU, because the Guardian has never talked about this.

[T_i_B]

20. It should also be added

That those that support Blair on this are the right-wing Euro-sceptic press. The likes of Will Hutton and the late Hugo Young who stick up for the EU are dead against Blair's approach to the BBC. Blair is simply capitulating to the agenda of the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black who can see an opportunity for a quick buck at the expence of the BBC.

[Armstead]

21. Not to mention Viacom, GE, etc.

The Yanks have their eyes on the British media. Viacom (MTV, CMT, BET,CBS,Paramont, etc.) has announed ambitious expansion plans there as deregulation opens up.

So Britain will ultimately end up with the same choices we have in America. Crap, crap and still more crap.

[AP]

24. Even if the US owned these broadcasters, EU has content requirements

that protect from US hegemony.

Here's a good overview of EU TV policy...

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l24101.htm





 



 



 

[Armstead]

3. As an American....

...what I find frustrating is that Britan has the experience of the US to learn from, in regards to selling out the mass media to the corporate pirates. Deregulation of media has been an unmitigated disaster here.

It is baffling how any Brit who is to the left of Atilla the Hun can look at the mess we have made and say "Gee. Let's do that too."

Tony Blair is indeed a baffling figure.

[AP]

4. The experience of America with media is that you can have a competitive

media market that produces products that people the world over enjoy.

News is one thing, and that's not what this EU thing is about. It's about whether the main TV and Film producers can take tons of public money giving them an unfair competitive advantage in the EU marketplace.

Once these companies are forced to actually compete (rather than merely throw their weight around in a marketplace they unfairly dominate) then you'll see these companies competing with American companies in the EU and in the rest of the world, including the US.

That's the American lesson. And these companies need to learn it becuase they'll create better products and more jobs and more wealth and tax revenue for Europe when they do.

What we need in the US, is a public NEWS source. (No a public entertainment source.)

[Armstead]

6. This "will" produce...

That's the Big Lie that has gotten us into this mess.

I am all for competition, markets and all the rest. But the policies that represents is nothing but a con job.

We're always told that things that create devestating social and economic consequences will be "good for us in the long run." I'm still trying to figure out why making American workers and companies compete with sweatshop wages overseas has been a good thing.

The "markets" are fine in their place. But they also lead to horrific inequities and abuses when left to operate on their own. In terms of culture, it has led us to a point where the shcklockmeisrers have total control of the means of communications in this countries.

[AP]

8. What horrible inequities are produce by the market for entertainment in...

France?

In fact, what horrible inequities are produced in any EU marketplace which the EU has insisted the governments get unfair public subsidies out of?

[Armstead]

10. France

I can't speak of. However I do know that in many countries, their public broadcasting systems and otehr cultural subsidies traditionally provided the ground for the creation of preservatiun of their national cultural lives and responsible news coverage.

Take that away and you get a media culture like we have in the US with hundreds of channels all going for the lowest common denominator.

I'm not being an elitist. But we're losing the balance. It's a fact of life that when you only allow commercial "market" forces to dominate mass communications. the worst will always push out the good. A naked woman mowing down an army will outdraw a documentary on western civilization in the ratings every time.

[AP]

25. The EU has rules for protecting some of that stuff.

It's a different matter whether states can't subsidize what should be private competitors.

There's not reason a taxpayer should be subsidizing top of the pops.

[Armstead]

27. I thought "free traders" were against beuracracy

Who is to decide if a program the BBC decides to produce is worthwhile cultural programming or mere "entertainment."

If they were to do a historical drama about William Shakespeare, for example, would they have to apply to Brusels for permission and a review of whether it is truly historical or a soap opera?

I agree that the BBC shouldn't be producing the same old stuff you can find on Fox. But that ought to be a policy decision made by the BBc, government and British people. Ceding all of their sovergnty to groups like WTO and EU takes away that right.

[AP]

31. The thing that creates a market for Shakespeare is a diverse, large

populaiton with a wealthy middle class. It's not because you're being forced to put it on the air, and then you're having nobody watch it.

Kenneth Branagh made Shakespeare popular in a free market because there was a diverse, wealthy middle class ready to take a chance on his new take on the material.

And, c'mon, Shakespeare IS popular.

OK, this debate is way broader and more nuanced than we're going to get into here.

The thing right now that's worth noting is that I can't relieve believe is that anyone would say that the BBC isn't responsible for many of the problems with British media today, which Labour is rapidly trying to undo by creating a more diverse marektplace, a larger, wealthier middle class, and by getting as much competition for Sky as possible.

Look, Rank, Pinewood and Working Title are probably the best things british film/TV production business has produced in the last 50 years. All three of those companies should have been/be world beaters today. A big big reason they aren't is because the BBC and ITV have created, from the top down, an irrational market for media production and distrtibution in filmed entertainment. It was the right thing to do 50 years ago, when a huge investment was needed to get things off the ground. But it should have been liberalized 30 years ago. The core quality of British production is the reason some of it has reached the world wide audiences it has. But, there's no reason Sasho Barron-Cohen (or whatever his name is) shouldn't be more popular than Eddie Murphy. And Dame Edna is NOT the best thing Britain has to offer the US. It's the poor economics which have limited the success of British media productions.

I think the UK doesn't realize the wealth and jobs and power it has LOST by allowing the BBC to totally dominate the way it has. It's like, man, didn't you people realize that the monarch was an inefficient way to run a marketplace in 1780? Why do you think the same rules didn't apply to TV production by 1979?

[Armstead]

34. Okay I pulled Shakespeare out of the hat

I could have named any number of subjects that are not "commercial" but that should be available to keep culture and ideas alive, from history to "high culture" to the avant garde and explorations of society that would not fit into the "commercial" marketplace based solely on gaining "eyeballs" and ratings points. That would also include programming that addresses otehr classes and minority interests.

IMO there is nothing wrong with reforming systems like the BBC on an ongoing basis. But as with many otehr aspects of life, the baby is in danger of being thrown out with the bathwater.The march towards "privatization" and turning everything over to protect "markets" is eclipsing othger social needs and igoals.

Also, the justifications for prostituting public services often overcomplicate basic goals and obscure the real purpose of things.

The purpose of public institutions like the BBC is straightforward. To provide a common communications resourcew whose aim is both to serve the broad public interest and specialized needs oustide of the "market" structure of comnmercial broadcasting.

The details of that can (and are) be wrangled over endlessly. But the basic purpoose of institutions like the BBC should be protected from the attempts of the private pirates to make every resource subservient to their profit-driven goals.

[T_i_B]

16. Murdoch supports Blair in Britain

And Blair, being scared of Murdoch, does whatever Rupert Murdoch tells him to.

Blair benefits from being in Murdoch's pocket as it keeps papers such as the Times from being critcal of him. The downside of all this is that the people of Britain get shafted for Blair's insane lust for power. It's not like Blair has moderated Murdoch in the slightest. if anything Murdoch's rags have gone even further to the right since they started supporting Blair.

[AP]

26. This is an oversimplificatioin.

When you have this triangulation, you find that you agree sometimes and disagree other times.

Fox and Labour agree that the gov't can't subsidize the BBC's entertainment business. But Fox want's to own BBC's business or they want no competition. Labour doesn't want fox to own ITV/BBC elements, and they do want strong competition for Fox.

[AP]

9. Incidentally. fox got to dominate UK quickly BECAUSE they only had BBC/ITV

against which they had to compete.

In the US, ABC, NBC, CBS et al. were engaged in a competitive marketplace which Fox has had a more difficult time dominating.

A lot of the problems with the UK media environment stem from the fact that the BBC has had total control for too long.

[Armstead]

11. A lot of the problem in the UK was....

not regulation, but not keeping the gloves on Murdoch and his ilk when they had the chance.

Again, I'm not saying there should not be commercial competition. But when you take away all of the restraints, you do not get competition -- you get defacto commercial monopolies instead of government regulated ones.

[AP]

28. A lot of the problem with UK is that there was no middle class, and BBC

was too old fashioned to support putting cable in people's homes.

In Germany and Switzerland in the late 90s, they had cable going into 50% of homes. They also had programs, years ealier, where the gov't supported and subsidized and owned cable hook-ups into peoples' homes. In the UK it was 10%. Italy and Spain also were at about 10%.

There is a correlation between the country's wealth and the number of people with cable.

The countries where they have more people connected to cable in the late 90s have way more channels and way more diversification of ownership of the cable companies.

Put all the pieces together and you still have a situation where Sky dominates UK cable because the market for TV wasn't liberalized earlier, and because the UK didn't take innocation seriously, and because the BBC dominated the marketplace for so long.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. The area in which Murdoch has domination is sports

and premium movie channels. He got that by putting a lot of money into it. He produces no original programming for the UK at all (Sky does carry the Simpsons, I'll give it that).

Neither the BBC, nor ITV, nor Channel 4 (nor Channel 5, but that came after) could afford to compete with Murdoch's money. If there had been more terrestrial channels, I fail to see how one of them could have had more money to outbid Murdoch, unless the BBC had put a huge percentage of its licence fee into sports - which would have badly hit the ability to produce other programmes.

[AP]

29. Two things: The EU has rules that require certain sporting events to be

on free broadcast TV, so that's going to remove the world cup and Euro Cup from fox's clutches.

That leaves the premier division, and I think there's enough evidence to suggest that Sky is having problems with its synergizing and monopolization of it. In any event, the solution is not to have the BBC compete against them with their flat-tax money. It's to have more channels and a more competitive marketplace for entertainment and sports. The solution also lies in having a bigger, wealthier middle class, but Blair's definitely taking care of that.

[T_i_B]

18. It's not Faux in the UK

It's Sky with all the satellie channels, and none of their programmes even comes close to BBC/ITV for ratings, not even Al Murray the Pub Landlord. Sky does not dominate the TV market, only the satellite market. Personally I don't have satellite because the various channels on offer there tend to be utter shite. If I want to watch sky sports then f**k it I'll go down the pub and get pissed with my mates (as I did on Wednesday night watching the Rangers v Man U match)

Even then much of the sport I am watching at the moment is on ITV2 not on Murdoch's stuff. The sport in question being the Rubgy World Cup.

[number six]

13. don't worry too much..

I pity any government that wants to take on the BBC. They're not going to win.

[David__77]

14. Sometimes I think it'd be better for the Tories to win...

Then at least there'd be more opposition to a right-wing agenda, if only for electoral purposes. Now, we have only the socialist left standing up for Britain.

[AP]

30. Damn, this is pretty ignorant.

I'm stunned when I see people think this way. I just have to assume that you have to be a coward and a loser to not want to be in a position of leadership. I have no respect for people who prefer opposition to leadership.

I have a ton of respect for the underdog and the little guy. But the whole point of supporting the underdog is because you want to see the underdog and the little guy win.

[legin]

32. Basically to state the obvious

In his coalition of the 'english speaking people' against most of the rest of the planet, bush* has a rather major fly in his ointment.

bush* has nearly all the mainstream media in his country at the very least co-operative and ensuring that 'consent is manufactured' in the majority of his native population, but however in his major ally, an ally that would be very embarrassing to lose from the coalition, the almost only major broadcasting company is dead set against the war on terrorism. The people of his ally nation britain have been insufficiently propagandised so that 60 to 75 percent of them are antiwar.

To make matters worse the ideas that the BBC are propagating are leaking across the Atlantic via the internet. Also the fact that the BBC, with its reputation of truthful unbiased reporting, have come out against the war, is of tremendous moral encouragement to the antiwar forces within America.

In any war the 'inner front', the morale of your home population, is just as important as what goes on in the far-flung battlefields where the war is being fought. The war in Vietnam was lost not just in the jungles of Vietnam, but also on the streets and in the minds of the people in America.

The BBC are thus a major obstacle to the successful prosecution of the war on terrorism and need to be delt with as quickly as possible.

[AP]

33. The BBC isn't some UNIVERSAL source of accurate news.

After all, it turns out that Gilligan wasn't far removed from Judith Miller in terms of connection to the same source and publishing similar view points which the BBC later had to admit weren't supported by fact.

The BBC does do some good stuff, and network news in the UK is 100 times better than the US. But it is, by no means, perfect, and does have some problems.

Let's not confuse ourselves into thinking that, in the BBC, lies the solutions to the media problems. After all, the Tories have had a vice grip on power throughout most of the life of the BBC, and I don't think it was the BBC that got Blair elected in 97 by any stretch of the imagination.