James Murdoch Criticizes BBC For Providing "Free News" 703
Hugh Pickens writes "News Corporation's James Murdoch says that a 'dominant' BBC threatens independent journalism in the UK and that free news on the web provided by the BBC made it 'incredibly difficult' for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news. 'It is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it,' says Murdoch. 'The expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision.' In common with the public broadcasting organizations of many other European countries, the BBC is funded by a television license fee charged to all households owning a television capable of receiving broadcasts. Murdoch's News Corporation, one of the world's largest media conglomerates, owns the Times, the Sunday Times and Sun newspapers and pay TV provider BSkyB in the UK and the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News TV in the US." Note that James Murdoch is the son of Rupert Murdoch.
Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what is threatening the plurality and independence of news. Sounds to me like the guy doesn't want plurality, he just doesn't want competition.
The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity. I know a lot of American who only get their news from there because they regard the American press as either too liberal or too conservative. (Or more often than not, too sensationalistic or too "fluffy.")
Symmetry (Score:5, Insightful)
That's OK, I criticize James Murdoch's News Corporation for providing false news.
I know which I would rather not be accused of.
Re:One good thing about Murdoch (Score:2, Insightful)
He's old, so he should die soon.
Rupert, maybe. But his son James here is only in his mid 30s. Like father, like son. We will be cursed with a Murdoch for some time... We can only hope that Jimmy here has only daughters and they go Paris Hilton and becomes a useless heiress. I'd rather have a blonde bimbo than a malignant media mogul.
As a company (Score:5, Insightful)
As it is, I think the Murdochs are just upset that a REAL news group keeps them from controlling the news. They want power. If there were anything else I could say to make this a stronger condemnation of News Corp, I would. They are really that bad. They are the evilness that Microsoft only aspires to.
Ultimate irony (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC reporting on someone saying the BBC is shit.
That sort of objectivity is why they need to survive just as they are.
Pot and kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't free (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they pay again just because Murdoch doesn't like the competition?
QOTD (Score:4, Insightful)
'It is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it,' says Murdoch.
Murdoch isn't selling anything I want to pay for. Now, if the BBC charges for its content, I would give serious consideration to doing so. There -- free market in action!
Ahh Yes the Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
What many people don't understand is that companies don't want to compete. Ideally, they want to form a monopoly and then stop innovating (because that's a cost) and raise prices (because that's profit). If they can't form a monopoly, they want to form a cartel with their main rivals. Murdoch and Son realize they can't buy the BBC, so they're taking the cartel approach whining about how they "can't compete". Actually what they're saying is, "Our plan to raise prices won't work, as long as someone doesn't. Join the news cartel, and we'll all profit."
News and Information is meant to be free (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet is all about free access to information and news. The BBC, PBS, NPR, etc are all public organizations that give out free information anyway and usually funded by the government and donations.
News Media Corp is a private corporation and doesn't seem to get the free news and free information philosophy of the Internet. If they charge for access to news and information they will suffer for it. Then only the wealthy will be able to access it, and some of the wealthy will refuse to pay and go to free sources instead.
Also when a news or information source is pay only and private, it cannot be used for citations anymore as a professor cannot log on to verify the source because they cannot afford the fees to every pay source of news and information and usually require the student to use the sources that the college provides for peer reviewed news articles and papers.
Murdoch is shooting himself in the foot with such a move.
Re:Ultimate irony (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not irony. It is simply unbiased, objective reporting.
Re:News and Information is meant to be free (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not shooting himself in the foot, he's acting in his own self interest. Yes, it may be kind of short-term thinking, but it would be profitable if he could do what he is trying to do.
I don't know if all info is meant to be free. The Wall Street Journal charges and makes money. They are providing a specific sector with timely and well researched information. There is value in that.
But what he is missing is the fact that for most topics a newspaper, newscast, or news channel is no longer the commodity. The STORY is the commodity.
Re:it's not free (Score:5, Insightful)
Up the BBC (Score:5, Insightful)
I find their news to be far more balanced and fair than any commercial operator I've encountered, as they're not beholden to their advertisers and contributers and rather to their audience. A perfect example being the current debate in America about socialized healthcare.
First we had reports about how the NHS was being used as an example of how socialized healthcare doesn't work, then reports on the anger this caused in the British populace (my God I was angry), then reports on the isolated incidents where the NHS has failed people.
Nowhere else have I found a more balanced and fair news outlet and I'm eternally grateful that we have our wonderful British Broadcasting Corporation.
It says a lot that James Murdoch has felt he had to attack the BBC to protect his business interests.
I wish Murdoch would quit whining (Score:3, Insightful)
Backhanded compliment (Score:4, Insightful)
If a member of the Murdoch family is criticizing you, you're probably doing something right.
Just for the record, I love the BBC and I love the NHS; nuts to anyone who thinks they're somehow evil.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not in the UK it isn't. That's absolutely nothing like a "fact". The BBC's long been criticized for having a a pro-Labour party bias, as well as a few other biases. It does have also a virtual monopoly on UK broadcasting, with very little to challenge its practices.
Murdoch is correct in some ways. He's obviously saying it for his own nefarious ends. And the large percentage of the UK media his company owns is also a very big part of the problem too. Reverting to charging for online news isn't a good idea -- for anyone. But more competition is a VERY good idea.
However, there are many, many issues with the way the BBC behaves, it does need to be examined more closely. It's news reports are not as trustworthy as you seem to think.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also personally concerned with the notion of a "television license". Call it paranoia, but it makes me think of the "secret radio!!" plot in Jakob the Liar -- a government powers to restrict your receipt of telecommunications are not very comforting.
He's sorta right (Score:5, Insightful)
Good news coverage is worth paying for. Unfortunately for Murdoch, with the sole exception of the Wall Street Journal, none of his holdings produce good journalism. Because with the exception of the Journal, everything covered in his TV stations or newspapers I can find in three hundred other locations on the web, in other newspapers, or on other TV stations. Because its all reworked AP stories. Good in-depth journalism died years ago, and now all we get from 99.9999999 percent of US media sources, including Murdoch's, is cookie-cutter stories.
If Murdoch really expects me to pay, then he's going to have to improve journalism at his own holdings and give me original information I can't find anywhere else. When he can do that, I'll pay (as I do for the WSJ now). Until then, not a chance in hell.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. The BBC is hardly impartial. It's been accused (with evidence) of being pro-Palestinian and well as anti-Israel. It's not neutral. Is the BBC as a concept wonderful? Yeah. Is it objective? No.
Yeah, well plenty of other people have accused it of being pro-Israeli [google.co.uk], so go figure.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
Don't trust the BBC to be impartial, fair or balanced, because it is none of these things. Everything it broadcasts reflects the viewpoint of the British Establishment. I trust it to provide me with weather reports, and that's about it. I resent having to pay for it.
Biased BBC [blogspot.com] has the definitive guide.
Re:How special do you think you are? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why this is Flamebait. I'm one of his countrymen. (Countrywoman in fact.)
I don't want to watch Sky TV. So I don't. I don't pay Mr Murdoch anything, and I don't get any Sky programmes. No problem.
I *also* don't want to watch BBC TV. But I still have to pay the BBC their licence tax. I still have to listen to other Brits going on about how impartial, fair and balanced the BBC is, even though I know for a fact that it isn't. I pay for the BBC to crush the competition through the power of their tax-funded "public service". I pay for the BBC to tell me who to vote for, what to say and what to think. And I am fucking sick of it. Where is my opt-out?
You can't compete with free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Murdoch concerned with news independence? LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
So the scion of the world's most notorious propagandist has the audacity to speak publicly about media policy.
If voters wish their government to do something for them, they vote for politicians that promise it, and it gets done. Those in England have voted to have a "public option" for news. Some will say that because it's "government owned" its objectivity cannot be trusted, and this is indeed a danger, just as it is a danger that privately owned media cannot be trusted, let alone under the laissez faire regulation regime that Murdoch Sr. and Jr. lobby for. Power is power, and it is not a foregone conclusion that power controlled by elected representatives is more dangerous than power controlled by corporate sponsors or the whims of billionaires.
It's reasonable that a government-run news organization could do a better job than a privately run organization. Similarly for electric power, firefighting services, courts, schools, etc. It's not guaranteed to succeed, but there is no fundamental problem with it in principle, as long as a nation has a free press (the government can say what they like, but so can everyone else).
The Murdoch's underscore the point by running some of the most servile and ludicrous propaganda instruments in mass media today. For those concerned about the difficulty of competing with the government to make news, one must simply examine reality to see how it is done. Amusingly, Murdoch himself is not always concerned with profit - he runs propaganda instruments such as the New York Post in the red simply to gain influence and push competitors out of business.
While some could make this story into a discussion about the principles of government, media and democracy, that would be elevating Murdoch's ploy far above what it is: a transparent attempt to destroy another competitor and gain even more unified control over the world's mass media. It is breathtakingly hypocritical on his part to cloak it in the rhetoric he does.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh I forgot NBC. They did a story about rollover-prone SUVs on Dateline, but some sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the SUVs were *pushed over* by a machine under the vehicle.
If you believe FOX News is the only channel that lies, then you are easily duped.
Re:How special do you think you are? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is my opt-out?
You don't need to own a TV. Or live in the UK. Either will work just fine for getting you out of paying the license fee.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think anyone's arguing that News Corp. was wrong as a matter of law--- it may indeed have been legal for them to fire an employee for refusing to including knowingly false information in a news broadcast. But it does mean that, as a matter of credibility, News Corp. is now on the record standing up for this right to knowingly provide false information in its news broadcasts. Do you really want to get your news from a news company that is willing to go to court to defend its right to lie?
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being British, I didn't know about this. Did they try and lock down taxpayer funded weather data so they could sell it to the people who had already paid for it?
Each day I find it harder to see the line between 'business' and 'racketeering'
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
I get really tired of people claiming that Not Spouting Right-Wing Garbage = Left-Wing Propaganda.
More politely: Lack of a bias in favour of X does not necessarily equate a bias in favour of some (real or imagined) opposite of X.
In nearly every country I've been in (excepting the US), the Beeb has a much better reputation for objectivity and believability than any US network, including CNN. The reason? It's not beholden to corporate interests or the political biases of an owner.
Warning: "To push politically-correct left-wing viewpoints" is code for "refusing to endorse right-wing/corporatist viewpoints".
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Paranoid much? "Left" seems to be a swear word among people who want to replace Western civilized liberalism with some feudal conservative hatemongering more prevalent in the Mid-eastern countries the same hatemongerers pretend to attack. When in reality right-wingers just don't want a mirror...
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:2, Insightful)
The above poster does not speak for the UK readers.
The BBC is as respected an institution as the NHS over here, and you know the shit that went down when Americans came along to have a go at that.
What you have to bear in mind is that, in the minds of most Brits, this Murdoch prick is trying to kill Doctor Who.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
That blog is definitive, in a sense. In that it accurately represents the fact that those who believe the BBC is systematically biased are right-wing nutjobs
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet they still try to tell me it wasn't supposed to rain last night...
Seriously, the vast majority of the time the convienence of not going to some crappy site and being bogged down by a corporate nightmare of a website, or having to wait for the weather on the TV, greatly makes up for whatever limited insight meteorologists can possibly add.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition, it's ad-free. NOAA and the NWS are some of the unsung heroes of government organizations. There, you can actually see your tax dollars at work. If you're giving Accuweather or Weather.com your clicks, you're giving them free money for not doing much of anything.
The News ... for sale (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you, but because they matter to me, I prefer to get my news from sources that do not consider either them or me or both as objects of profit.
I realize every news source has some agenda, so I check more than one for the really important stuff. But, you know, the thing about agendas is that they are fairly solid and if you know them, you can compensate for it. The thing about pure for-profit companies is that their agenda will change to whatever marketing says that day.
Journalism is one of the areas where we can witness, live and in colour, that the free-market ideology does not provide the optimum solution for every problem on every axis. Rather, it provides an optimum profit-maximum solution for problems along the financial axis.
Re:it's not free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the BBC really provides value for money, then why doesn't it move to a subscription model, so that people can pay for it if they want? There are subscription channels on satellite and digital terrestrial TV. If you don't pay, you don't get them.
Clearly, if most Brits love the BBC, they won't mind "opting in" and paying for BBC channels.
On the other hand, if most Brits would rather not pay for the BBC, then that rather calls the whole "licence fee" thing into question, does it not?
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know a lot of American who only get their news from there because they regard the American press as either too liberal or too conservative. (Or more often than not, too sensationalistic or too "fluffy.")
As an American myself, I'd say that much of our news is all of the above, but I could accept that. The problem is, it's more often inaccurate, misleading or simply outright fabrication. Note that the press in this country was given special consideration under our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, so that we could make informed choices about who we select as our leaders. Unfortunately for us, the press has largely abrogated that responsibility in favor of crass money-grubbing and political pandering. And that has gone hand-in-hand with the rapid expansion of our various governmental bodies and ongoing loss of civil liberties.
... mostly for impartial reporting on the political affairs of my own country. That pisses me off as well. Oh, not at the BBC, but at the news organizations in the U.S. who seem to believe that it is now their job to provide PR for the big boys, and in the process mold public opinion. I do not want my opinion molded, and I think that any reporter who fraudulently expresses his personal opinions and biases as fact without disclaimer should be given free room and board by the State for a while.
... they're disinforming us and yes, Mr. Murdoch, you're at the forefront of that particular movement. Furthermore, any claims you have about the quality and impartiality of BBC reporting sound like they are: more lies. The BBC does a fine job and most of its counterparts in your organization could learn a few things from them. The Brits already pay for the privilege of having the BBC so it's hardly free, and in any event, they're better off without having you anywhere in the picture.
Had the free press done its job as the Founders intended it to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion. At least we still can (have discussions like this, I mean) but it's by no means guaranteed that that will always be so. In any event, I do hit the BBC for a lot of information
At this point, I'm inclined to think that if the press isn't going to do their jobs right, they shouldn't be given any special privileges. They're no longer informing us
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:3, Insightful)
NOAA forecasts are not available to non-U.S. citizens (or if they are available, have no value way over in Europe).
A. That's just not true, and B. do you have any idea how much information on, well, pretty much everything the U.S. government gives away for free, whether you live here or not? Bash America if you like, but get your goddamn facts straight. Oh, and while you're at it turn off your GPS receiver: that system was paid for by U.S. taxpayers and you really shouldn't be using it, you know. Wouldn't be right and all, since you didn't pay a single Euro for it.
In related news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prostitutes are demanding that everybody else stop providing sex for free, as it reduces the demand for their paid services.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, they do that here too. It makes more sense to accuse the media of systemic bias than to admit that their ego is bruised by the fact that their views are validated in conspiracy rags but not major news outlets. The question of which scenario is true is solved Occam's razor. The problem of their opinion mattering was solved by the most recent presidential and congressional elections.
So can the sarcasm, Frenchy, we're doing the best we can!
Re: Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Would that be fair?
Depends on whether you subscribe to the Reaganite doctrine that a government should not be allowed to do anything that a capitalist middle-man could make a profit on.
Beyond that, I'm having a bit of trouble working up any sympathy for a guy who's complaining that a public service is making it hard for him to charge people for the lies he tells them.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not in the UK it isn't. That's absolutely nothing like a "fact". The BBC's long been criticized for having a a pro-Labour party bias
They labeled you a troll because "they can't handle the truth". Every organization is biased in some respect. Just follow the money back to the source.
Re:Up the BBC (Score:1, Insightful)
The BBC is under constant attack from Murdoch's media empire (and to a lesser extent other commercial media companies). Not a day goes by when one of the newspapers, TV stations or other media outlets it owns doesn't run a story about something the BBC has done that is bad. Whether it is running a TV show critical of Christianity (despite the fact it airs the pro-Christianity programme 'songs of praise' every week), wasting the licence fee payer's money by buying an iPod touch for the web department to test the website on (yes really), Clarkson's latest marginally offensive joke or dishonoring British troops by going after the UK government over Iraqi. So this isn't a new thing. They have been attacking the BBC day in and day out for probably 3 decades now.
They want it gone because it does two things they don't like:
1) It takes away advertising revenue.
2) The BBC acts as a quality control (In both news and programming) so they can't get away with a Fox News style TV show. Any lies they tell would stand out like a sore thumb.
It will be a sad day when they get their way. Which they will. Eventually they will pay the right number of politicians the right amount of money and the BBC will either have its funding slashed or it will be commercialised.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Each day I find it harder to see the line between 'business' and 'racketeering'
It's easy to remember - 'business' is government approved.
Re:Missing the Point (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, any time you want to contribute something to the discussion more than whining, be my guest. Right now, everyone else has been far more interesting than you, even when they're mindlessly bashing.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Murdoch Senior had a nasty habit at kicking the BBC in a similar manner. Nice to see Junior hasn't bothered to develop his own consciousness and has merely cloned his dad's. Seriously these rants translate as little more than a vain attempt to undermine the competition with cheap rhetoric designed to increase profit and feed ignorance. I mean when Dad's worth an estimated $4 billion world domination is about the only thing left to try, and the BBC as an a mostly impartial and independent media service is obviously standing in the way.
Anyone who is in any way swayed by Murdoch Junior's argument needs to read Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent and then needs to wake up to the fact that the BBC is perhaps the one media outlet that stands in the way of the frightening picture this book paints. After all the BBC is in a different industry in that they're about providing media to their audiences and news to the public, not audiences to their advertisers and propaganda to their punters.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) In our country a judge is not required to make a ruling solely based upon laws that are on the books.
2) Whistleblower protections also include "threats to the public interest" - which is certainly true in this case.
You, and obviously many judges, forget the purpose of a justice system. The purpose is to meter out justice, not blindly follow a fucking rulebook.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
To the right-wing mind, helping people is intrusive "big government," but killing people is fine and dandy.
Hope that clears things up.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>I'd trust the BBC any day of the week over "news" reported by a Murdoch mouthpiece.
I disagree. Not that I have any great love fox Murdoch, but I don't trust the BBC. They are as slanted as PBS, constantly trying to explain why we need more and bigger government programs. I don't need to hear that bias. Just once I'd like to hear either the BBC or PBS present a story about why government needs to be smaller, but of course that will never happen.
You can say what you want about the BBC but they employ people like Jeremy Paxman [youtube.com] AKA the last news man with balls. If he lived in the states he'd probably be relegated to some topical comedy show.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:2, Insightful)
The funny thing is that people don't seem to understand that the BBC charter dictates that they can't biased in their coverage, whereas in practice fox news dictates to their employees that they have to be.
To me fox news is about on a par with Al Manwar, which happens to be banned in the US, fucking hypocrisy.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:5, Insightful)
If most Brits didn't like the license fee, it would be a major issue. The Telegraph has spent the last thirty years trying to push for the BBC to be privatized, and it's never had any traction, not even during the height of Thatcher's power. If Thatcher wouldn't kill the BBC, then it's pretty damn clear there's no public will, just evil lying bastards like Murdoch who doesn't want any outside agency showing just how immoral and unethical his news is.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seeing as I live a third of a world away from the UK, I wouldn't be listening to and reading BBC coverage if it wasn't good. Admittedly it covers very little of the local issues, but I don't expect them to do so.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the BBC is biased towards the British people who pay the licence fee?
I'll pay (Score:2, Insightful)
Here in the US, my only source of news is NPR, and I pay for that every year by 'subscribing' to my local station during their pledge drives. I'll gladly subscribe to the BBC to get my world news from a world class organization, if that's what it takes to keep Murdoch and his minions away.
Re:How special do you think you are? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. For two reasons. Firstly, the BBC has political bias. I've gone on about that at length, won't mention it again.
Secondly, the quality of BBC programmes isn't all that great. There are some gems out there, but a lot of it is just mindless mainstream dross of the sort that could quite easily be produced by any of the commercial channels. It's as if they've given up on trying to be cultured, and have just decided to compete for viewers instead. I find myself watching a lot of TV imported from the US these days - no BBC influence there - so I just don't think the licence fee is worth it.
This seems to be a common gripe in countries with strong public television. I happen to live in Finland and we have the same kind of system and the complaints are the same. Depending on which party is in the majority the public broadcasting company is accused to favor it and the mandatory tv license is often called unconstitutional, unfair, and whatnot on discussion forums. And the funny part is - our broadcasting company buys several BBC and HBO shows and there are both people who claim that the quality is not good enough and people who say that those expensive programs belong to pay-tv channels.
And we have had the same despute here in Finland too - a few months ago the heads of the commercial tv/radio companies filed a complainment against the public broadcast company because it provides it's news on public billboards and loudly voiced an outcry that their business is hurting. And there have been also mumbling about how a publicly funded organization should not have a good web service with news and archives of it's programs.
For me this is just hilarious - channels with no ability to produce original tv programs (let alone domestic tv shows) and fill themselfs with crap and occasional news broadcast (competition in news is good, Finnish tv suffered from "one source syndrome" 30 years ago but then again - the whole society was bend over tovard the soviet union). I can't - even for money buy ad-free quality news, drama and documentary. I am more than happy to pay for my programs but I want them ad-free and produced with professionalism, not the crap Animal Planet and Discovery gives me (1/5 of the time is ads even on pay-tv, only a few quality shows).
As an American (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd gladly pay the BBC license fee if given the opportunity. I decided to stop consuming mainstream US media after the 2008 primaries, which actually represented what passed for a high-water mark in reporting here. CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all horribly corporatist and biased towards the powers that be. Nowadays, I get my radio news from the BBC world service (either from my satelleite radio or from podcasts) and from the daily BBC World News broadcasts on BBC America.
There is simply no comparison between the reporting from the BBC and from the mainstream American news organizations. There are fewer fluff pieces, and actual news stories that the US media simply won't cover are done in detail. Additionally, the lack of commercials for dick pills every five minutes is icing on the cake. If the BBC ever wants more funding, they should simply let non-British people pay the license fee. I already get most of the good stuff for free, but if I could get Top Gear and a few other shows legally it would be nice. I understand there are licensing issues with soccer broadcasts here, but you can keep that nonsense.
Until then, I'd like to thank you limeys for providing the best English-language news on the planet.
My CAPTCHA for this post was "RETARD". If I believed in signs I'd be depressed right now.
Re:Government solution, of course (Score:2, Insightful)
The BBC is essentially an arm of the government.
...
It is much like the Obama healthcare "public" option. Publicly funded services will swamp privately funded ones and eventually the private ones will disappear. Yes, Fox News in the UK is threatened in this way by the BBC as insurance companies will be under Obamacare's public option.
There are two fallacies here, one is the public funding leads to government control and the other is the public and private funding can not coexist. The UK experience plainly shows the contrary.
Both the BBC and the NHS are publicly funded but they both have their own constitutions [dh.gov.uk], charters [bbc.co.uk] and governing bodies which control them independently of the government of the day. The British might chose to elect a government that decides to override these protections. Similarly the US might chose to elect a government that on the one hand overrides the constitutional protections of the press, or on the other hand one that decides to create some form of public health care.
The idea that the NHS would drive out private practice in health care was the fear of many doctors when the service was set up, but over the sixty years of its existence this simply has not happened. Health care in the UK remains a mixture of private and public provision. There is co-operation [bupa.co.uk] between the two sectors.
The position in broadcasting is even stronger. While the BBC started as a state monopoly broadcaster this is no longer the case. Independent commercial radio [mds975.co.uk] and television [teletronic.co.uk] stations have had a long existence in the terrestrial broadcasting and have expanded further with the onset of digital [virginmedia.com]. Ironically Sky [sky.com] a Murdoch company was until the recent onset of Freesat [freesat.co.uk] the sole supplier of digital satellite broadcaster for the UK. Companies have set up profitable healthy businesses in this space despite the presence of the BBC.
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Threatening plurality? (Score:2, Insightful)
...the racketeers are better at paying their taxes.
...and getting their taxes reduced before they even pay them.