Why I think the BBC is better than Murdoch.

James Murdoch (36), leader of numerous media outlets spanning multiple countries, and son of multi-billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has been giving the annual MacTaggart lecture to fellow media bosses in Edinburgh, and he's thrown what some of us might call a bit of a "paddy".
"Is Murdoch concerned at the lack of action being taken over climate change?"
No.
"Is he worried about the increasing gap in wealth and opportunity between the poorest and the richest?"
No.
"So what exactly is Mr. Murdoch getting so worried and angry about?"
He's worried about the "chilling" scope and expansion of state media, particularly the BBC, and how it is "damaging" corporate broadcasters (and conveniently but inevitably hitting them in that most painful spot - the wallet - at the same time). Hes worried that the BBC is too strong for other (private) broadcasters to survive (and make big fat profits in the process), and that's why his group are going to start charging for their internet services.

Now, I happen to quite like the BBC, and use its facilities for keeping up to date with the headlines and the sport on a regular basis, through it's website, on the television, and on the radio. I think it's a pretty good service.

Now I do sympathise with Murdoch on one level - the liscence fee is ridiculous. It's expensive, it takes no account of how much or how little BBC television you use, and it just keeps going up! I don't object to paying for the services the BBC provide, but I do think they are over-priced. I also like to have a little whinge now and again when I have to pay the BBC in order to be able to watch ITV, and Channels 4 and 5 - it's a bit of a crazy anachronism and I don't object to proposals to give them (and ONLY them Mr. Cameron) a slice of the liscence fee to be spent on their News and informative programmes that are in the public interest. But what I detest so vehemently, is when fat cats like Murdoch and Branson charge me between £15-30 per month EXTRA to watch digital television (actually when my parents do, I use FreeView muhahaha). and THEN have the audacity to complain that they are unable to compete with the BBC. At the lower and extremely conservative (small c) estimate of £15 per month, that means that it costs me £180 per year to watch satelite/cable TV. This is approximately 25% MORE than the liscence fee AND their channels are riddled with shockingly bad adverts which levy them even more money!

Now, with all this extra money you'd think the quality of their television would be vastly superior to terrestrial television, and let's be honest, it worse in every possible way except for variety of channels! If I turn on my parents TV, and their digital TV, what do I get? I get the BSkyB channels which, whilst they do have some programmes I watch, I would say I use less than frequently. Then there are a select dozen or so other channels I watch when there is something on I want to see (Dave, G.O.L.D, ITV2,3,4, etc). Finally, there are the billion or so channels I don't watch, and I bet only niche parts of the populations do (Cookery channels, The God channel, Al-Jazeera TV, Discovery Channel etc). The only other channels I would ever use (Movies and Sky Sports or Sentanta which is now defunct) cost me a shed-load extra! (another £108 a year to be exact!).

As for newspapers and such, (Murdoch's real pot of gold) I tend to read the Guardian or his own Times, as well as the Daily Mirror on occasion. I also sometimes read foreign newspapers, Germany's Bilde or Der Spiegel when I'm feeling particularly adventurous. Now, to be honest, most of these newspapers are pretty expensive (with the exception of the crappy tabloids) for what you get, and they tend to be filled with sensationalist nonsense and biased half-truths rather than news, which for me has helped feed the 'me me ME' Americanised culture we seem to have in the UK and helped degrade the community spirit and left-leaning common concensus which the oldies tell us "made Britain great" in the rough period 1945-1979. If your papers start reporting actual news that people wanted to hear rather than celebrity gossip and mindless drivvel then more people might buy them beyond the mindless few and the sadly growing under-class of people with no prospects and little respect for the law or their fellow people.

But I will save the essay on the balance between the right's and responsibilities of the media for another day.

In contrast to this madness and mayhem, the BBC liscence fee runs five resonably good television channels (BBC 1, 2, 3, 4 and BBC News 24 at my count!) as well as at least half a dozen radio stations and the BBC website. Now granted not everyone uses all of these services, but everyone can use these services if they wish, and some of them (radio and websites) without paying a penny of the liscence fee!

As that orange fellow off the antiques programmes would say, "Now that's the REAL deal!"

Perhaps if Murdoch and his fellows took a leaf out of the BBC's book rather than slating it because it's hitting his profits, his sales and the quality of his media outlets would drastically improve.