News - Vince Cable pokes his nose into News Corp acquisition of Sky

[HEXUS]

The business secretary has asked Ofcom to investigate the public interest implications of the deal.

Read more.

[cordas]

Good, to me it comes down to a simple discussion about the facts and the type of country we want to live in.

Yes the Beeb is heavy weight in the news business in this country, but its an organisation that tries to keep itself firmly rooted in the middle ground, it tends to shy away from sensationalising stories or pushing any particular ideological stance.

Where as News corp is fervently right wing in its approach and looking at their stance on 'news' in other countries (particularly Fox news in the US) its quite clear that this is an organisation that likes to set the agenda and hammer home its ideological perspective at any and all opportunities, regardless of whether the facts fit their stories or not.

News corp takes a very strong stance along the lines of 'you are with us or against us', there is no middle ground there is no acceptable alternative, you either agree with them or they attack.

[pollaxe]

Whenever I hear about Murdoch I always think of Dennis Potter who referred to his own terminal cancer as his 'Rupert.'

I just hope the Murdochmachine won't be able to buy its way this time.

[[GSV]Myocardial]

Got to agree with Cordas about this.

Rather telling that on visiting the sky website the top banner links to an appology by the BBC regarding linking band aid with arms deals. At least they apologies and recognise their public wrongs (even if they are probably correct in this case) unlike News Corp.

Personally don't agree with the sky model at all and although I don't think the BBC model is perfect, it's at least somewhat accountable to the country and the people.

[Scott B]

Yes the Beeb is heavy weight in the news business in this country, but its an organisation that tries to keep itself firmly rooted in the middle ground, it tends to shy away from sensationalising stories or pushing any particular ideological stance.

That's what it would have you believe, but the facts frequently clash with that image.

[Scott B]

Personally don't agree with the sky model at all and although I don't think the BBC model is perfect, it's at least somewhat accountable to the country and the people.

How's that then?

And surely any private enterprise is accountable to its customers...

[aidanjt]

And surely any private enterprise is accountable to its customers...

Hypothetically, perhaps.

[Saracen]

How's that then?

And surely any private enterprise is accountable to its customers...

In theory, perhaps. but at least at an individual level, customers have about as much influence with Sky as an ant has with the main battletank that just squished its anthill - it might get really miffed, but the behemoth rumbles on and either doesn't care or more likely, doesn't even notice the furious ant.

[Scott B]

In theory, perhaps. but at least at an individual level, customers have about as much influence with Sky as an ant has with the main battletank that just squished its anthill - it might get really miffed, but the behemoth rumbles on and either doesn't care or more likely, doesn't even notice the furious ant.

Sure, but do individuals have any greater influence over the beeb?

[usxhe190]

Actually, I don't really care if Murdoch buys out the remaining Sky. If Sky news becomes like Fox, the rational people will see through it and know.

[[GSV]Myocardial]

Sure, but do individuals have any greater influence over the beeb?

Way more than they do of Sky, the trust is actually fairly effective in making the BBC produce for the masses and while it can't please everyone it does a pretty good job for what we actually each pay.

Working at the top of a listed company I experience daily how large companies tend to ignore small customers, especially when you have a model such as sky of a large number of users paying small amounts each. I mean we as a large listed are not really that influenced by our shareholders let alone a few small customers, either customers pay what we want or they go somewhere else and in Sky's market there is about zero real choice bar maybe virgin in certain areas.

They pretty much run a monopoly, with a state sponsored entity meaning they can't get away with whatever they want to, but I'm pretty certain that if the licence fee was removed you'd see a whole different story from sky.

I also hope we can continue to have the benefit of the BBC as i personally don't want to live like the yanks with a very limited news flow about anything outside the country.

[peterb]

How's that then?

And surely any private enterprise is accountable to its customers...

News Corp is a publicly listed company and as such is accountable to its shareholders.

As to its customers, who generate its revenue streams, there are essentially two classes, the subscribers and the advertisers - so the requirement is to generate content that attracts the maximum number of subscribers that will reach those advertisers. It is very much ratings driven.

[Scott B]

Way more than they do of Sky, the trust is actually fairly effective in making the BBC produce for the masses and while it can't please everyone it does a pretty good job for what we actually each pay.

Working at the top of a listed company I experience daily how large companies tend to ignore small customers, especially when you have a model such as sky of a large number of users paying small amounts each. I mean we as a large listed are not really that influenced by our shareholders let alone a few small customers, either customers pay what we want or they go somewhere else and in Sky's market there is about zero real choice bar maybe virgin in certain areas.

They pretty much run a monopoly, with a state sponsored entity meaning they can't get away with whatever they want to, but I'm pretty certain that if the licence fee was removed you'd see a whole different story from sky.

I also hope we can continue to have the benefit of the BBC as i personally don't want to live like the yanks with a very limited news flow about anything outside the country.

I can't see how I, or you, have more influence over the BBC Trust than a Sky customer has over its board. And of course Sky is nowhere near being a monopoly - it's not even allowed to monopolise the football coverage it has paid so much to acquire!

This is about media plurality, not the existence of the BBC, and I'm not convinced that adding Sky (which News Corp already has a lot of control over) to the papers makes News International a more powerful news organisation than the beeb.

[Scott B]

It is very much ratings driven.

My point exactly.

[aidanjt]

The Beeb responds to any handful of moans. Jeremy Clarkson is proof of that.

[Kevsta]

I would be happier if HMRC actually cracked down on News International tax avoidance schemes. At one point over a ten year period they paid a tax rate of about 1%. For a company the generate billions a year, and has a huge influence on the public, it's about time they started paying.