Rupert Murdoch and the UK

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Lord Blackadder, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. Lord Blackadder, Dec 21, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2010

    Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #1
    There have been two interesting Rupert Murdoch-related stories in the UK press recently...

    First, the director general of the BBC said that Murdoch wanted Sky News (which he partially owns through his News Corporation media empire) to adopt a "Fox [News]-Style" of journalism, though apparently the Sky folks resisted.

    Second, UK Business Secretary Vince Cable was apparently taped saying that he'd "declared war on Rupert Murdoch". He was subsequently stripped of the power to make a decision over whether to let Murdoch's News Corporation to take over BSkyB.

    Now, regardless of where you stand politically, I am inclined to believe that most of us in the US think our television "news" media situation is a cluster-you-know-what, and given the chance to have a more impartial news industry we'd all take it. So if I was an English-type, my hair would be standing on end at the thought of Fox News (or any reasonable facsimile thereof) coming to the UK. Good luck, I hope Rupert doesn't get his way, for your sake.

    P.S. What is it with you in the UK, always taping each other and selling it to the red tops? A nation of voyeurs, it seems....
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    That's "Vince" Cable to you.

    Rupert Murdoch has already got his cadaverous paws on a good chunk of the British press and TV. Even took over my family newspaper...
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Murdoch is a corrupting force in UK politics. Cable is 100% correct in wanting the man's influence to be limited from further expansion. Unfortunately Murdoch's already bought the Tories as he did "New Labour" before them, which means he'll get his way.
     
  4. Lord Blackadder thread starter macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #4
    Murdoch's media empire is, frankly, evil. It's not his politics that bother me the most - it's his philosophy on what "news" should be that really frightens me.

    Ha! I was speaking to a coworker named Jay as I typed. At least I didn't call him Rupert.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    There are worse names than Rupert. ;)
     
  6. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #6
    Murdock is evil, and political parties have pretty well had to play ball with him up till now to both get into and stay in power.

    We absolutely need his influence to be diminished. His braying tabloids played no small part in Labour's ridiculous knee jerk over-legislation over the last few years, as they responded to every daft story and campaign dreamt up by news corp. Hopefully the Tories will resist him a little better.

    It's a shame that Vince Cable is such a conceited ass. All that stuff about bringing the government down should have got him sacked - except he'd cause more trouble outside the cabinet than in it. Now he's made an enemy explicitly of Murdock, he's going to end up the target of every allegation and the butt of every joke.

    I think Fox news is vile... but until the BBC starts to temper its left wing bias, I can see how the establishment of a right wing news station would have some appeal.
     
  7. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    Far more people in the U.S. get their news and opinion from FOX than CNN, MSNBC, or related. IMHO, their programming is better, their news is often more relevant, their opinion is much more entertaining, and regardless of what you think of the content, its frankly more enjoyable to watch, pulls the ratings, and sells the ad space. Are they perfect? Haha, no - FAR from it! But, most importantly, Fox is a useful counterbalance to the entire liberal media establishment, albeit a rather neo-con rather than libertarian counterbalance as I would prefer... but still, a counterbalance. I think they do the system justice and we're all better off with more opinions than just one.

    Murdoch is a brilliant business man. He's not evil at all, unlike George Soros. After seeing much of the student protests in the past few weeks, it seems to me that the UK could very much use a conservative FOX counterbalance - much like this forum. ;)
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Only on cable, I think.


    Do you not see how idiotic a response this is?
     
  9. Lord Blackadder thread starter macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #9
    Wouldn't you prefer NO bias at all? That way we wouldn't need to balance one bias with another. I don't want news to be "enjoyable" and "entertaining", I want it to be informative and comprehensive.

    As for Murdoch, I'm convinced he's evil.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    I find "evil" a most unsatisfactory epithet. But, yes, for sure. :)
     
  11. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #11
    I think that's the problem right there. Fox is enjoyable and entertaining for conservatives just like the Daily Show is for liberals. But the Daily Show is a comedy show on Comedy Central.
     
  12. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #12
    First of all, there's no such thing. Something like 70-80% of all reporters/journalists are liberal. Even when they're trying to be 'fair' and 'unbiased' they're far from it. They consciously or unconsciously avoid arguments which they can't wrap their head around. This is a well known fact.

    Second of all, no, I wouldn't necessarily prefer news with no bias. In my experience, news with bias is able to provide deeper and more meaningful analysis than unbiased sources. The key is to consume content from a variety of sources. For instance, if you were to watch Glenn Beck a year or so ago (before he got on his religious redemption train) you would have learned a lot more about the FED, about free market economics, etc. than you ever could have hoped to learn on CNN. If you would have read the Huffington Post during the same time period you would have learned a lot about Republican hypocritical voting records for big-defense spending, etc. but neither of those would have been found in NEARLY the detail on CNN or the CBS evening news.

    Third, If you want to get more people to care about the news, if you want to get more people involved in politics, or to care about the issues of the day - you need to make programming somewhat entertaining. I'm not going to read a newspaper that's boring. I'm not going to watch a news show that makes me go to sleep. Enough with the holier-than-thou 'don't entertain me' attitude. If you want people to consume information, you have to build demand for that information.
     
  13. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #13
    You don't have a liberal media establishment in the US. It's entirely dreamt up by the republicans and tea-partiers.

    UK politics if fundamentally different to the US - and it revolves around a more left-wing axis. Neither the left wing Labour party, nor the more right wing Tory parties have a good 'libertarian' history - but the Labour party's recent past has been awfully authoritarian.

    We generally have a right wing bias in the cheaper newspapers (typified by the Sun and the Daily Mail), more of a left wing bias in the better papers (Guardian, Independent and FT) and a left wing bias in the BBC. Sky news is slightly more right wing right now, but doesn't have anywhere near the pervasive reach of the BBC.
     
  14. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #14
    Your analysis of UK politics/papers sounds fairly reasonable from what I know - but you're WAY off base regarding the US media. I'm sorry, but it's blatantly left-leaning. Many organizations attempt to be as unbiased as possible, but they unconsciously drip their own bias into each and every segment. This is frankly not debateable. Professionals in the field, and anyone with an open mind, realizes it to be true. The only people who don't seem to get it are those who are liberal themselves and watch the news and 'see nothing wrong with it.' I would argue that's some of the best evidence of bias... when those on the left thing the news is 'unbiased.' ;)
     
  15. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #15
    Well, it certainly doesn't look very left wing from a UK perspective!
     
  16. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #16
    Do you have a source for this? Examples of bias?
     
  17. Lord Blackadder thread starter macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #17
    A sweeping and massively incorrect generalization. Anything that is not staunchly far-right conservative is, in your mind, liberal. Your political spectrum is binary.

    I wouldn't call it "deeper and more meaningful analysis" so much as "insidious spin and outright lies."

    I agree- - but the "infotainment" news channels should not be included, as they are a waste of time.

    Why does everything have to be a dog-and-pony show? The current sound-bite fetish essentially takes the real content out of the news and makes the media chase the lowest common denominator.

    Not only do the "infotainment" news stations spin everything heavily, they often avoid reporting on news that goes against their platform; for example, Fox news self-censors stories that paint conservatives in a negative light. Censorship is worse than spin, but for Fox it's a staple.
     
  18. Schtumple macrumors 601

    Schtumple

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Location:
    benkadams.com
    #18
    I was going to bother propperly replying to this thread, as news in this country is slowly turning into a massive joke (FWIW, I get all my news from BBC, and even they're become biased at times), but as always, there's FAR too many sweeping statements being made by a few users with no sources to back up their claims.

    Opinions on news stories are great and often serve to educate an audience far better than simply representing facts, but when that opinion is presented as fact, that's when it gets dangerous and news corps get control over an audiences opinions, which is why I dislike Fox News.

    Oh, and fivepoint, I'm pretty sure screwing over an entire generation of potential university students by jacking up fees by 200-300% because of a financial crash caused by banks in your country is going to cause some justifiable anger and protests...
     
  19. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #19
    How do you perceive the BBC's bias?
     
  20. northy124 macrumors 68020

    northy124

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    #20
    Personally I could careless if BSkyB is taken over fully buy Murdoch, sure the impartiality of news will go down slightly but then again the BBC aren't that impartial either really are they?

    Vince Cable is an idiot too, he recently said he'd bring down the government if pushed too far... what a false sense of importance the stupid liberal ass, he isn't the main player that would bring down the coalition IMO.
     
  21. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #21
    remember 2003 and the role the US media played on the road to war in iraq ? for somebody not in the US it was one of the worst performances of an independent media ever ... essetially becoming voluntarily a blood-thirsty propaganda machine for the USG drumming up support for the war
     
  22. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #22
    I hate the sound-bite media. As I stated before, I find biased sources of news to be a much better source of more in-depth information. The amount of information the NYT provides in a long story, or the amount of time Glenn Beck spends on one issue far outweighs the stripped down out-of-context facts and soundbites you get from the evening news for example. They spend more time, go more in-depth, and as long as you understand the perspective they're coming from it's endlessly more useful. If you actively consume biased news, it's ESSENTIAL that you consume from different sources... but in the end I strongly feel that doing so will result in a much deeper and more meaningful level of news consumption than you could have otherwise garnered from a unbiased source.



    You're right that they serve to education audiences better, and I also think you're right that they present opinion as fact. Where I think you go wrong is that you don't put any of the blame on the audience. It's just like cereal. Cereal is ok as part of a balanced breakfast. In fact, certain cereal will give you specific vitamins that you can't get elsewhere, but if that's all you eat you might get sick. Fox and NYT, etc. are HORRIBLE for you if that's your only source of info. But, as part of a balanced breakfast they're great for you and in fact may leave you more energetic than you would have been just eating a single piece of unbiased ;) fruit for breakfast.


    Higher education is not a right in my opinion. It's a luxury, it's a service, it's a good. If your country wants to socialize the system so everyone gets in cheap, that's fine... but you'll have to deal with the financial ramifications... which you're doing now.
     
  23. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #23
    I actually somewhat agree. As I stated earlier, I wish Fox had a more libertarian as opposed to neo-con leaning staff. They're far more anti-war, anti-massive-defense-spending than the liberal democrats in this country are. 9/11 shook the hell out of people in this country, I don't think everyone was thinking clearly yet when Iraq was being pushed. Blatantly false (albeit seemingly universally accepted) intelligence also didn't help.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    This explains everything from fivepoint. Its not that he doesn't want to adhere to the rules here in PRSI dictating that discussion be fact based. It just that, as clearly shown from this post, he doesn't know what the word "fact" actually means.

    This clears up so much confusion for me. :)
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    It sure does.
     

Share This Page