Murdoch - obviously has his own agenda - but makes some very valid points.

I think the role and remit of the BBC is questionable as we move ever more into a web based broadcasting future

That the BBC skews the commercial landscape is unarguable. Post-recession - advertising will not come back to the same capital levels as previously and therefore the ability of commercially funded ventures to provide competition in the future will be limited.

The BBC's hegemomy affects local and specialist areas as well as the mainstream - the scale of its activities being so vast. Why does the BBC need to buy Lonely Planet AND pay Wossy several kings ransomes?

I'm all for Radio 4 and David Attenborough - but Celebrity Come Dancing I can leave.

The future of the BBC seems to me to only have validity in a pared down model as a provider of news and educational programming.

As for the rest, in a multi-channel digitized future, I want to be able to choose the entertainment options I seek out not pay a blanket tax that serves some ill-defined consensus and leaves us all feeling dissatisfied

Considering the alternative, which is realistically a Sky hegemony. Of all the various deductions on my virtual payslip, the BBC is the one I resent least.

Whatever reservations I might have about how my licence fee is being spent by the BBC, I'm not looking to the Murdoch clan for answers on how to ensure a more objective, impartial and informative media service to the public.

Old Digger has been partly responsible for the dumbing down of the media right across the spectrum for the best part of 40 years. You only have to watch and the read the diet of trivial, ephemeral, celebrity driven, slanted and politically biased claptrap that's pumped out globally to the public every second of the day through his organisations, TV stations, newspapers and other media.

The real problem with the BBC is its head-in-the-sand management culture rather than the quality of its news journalism output.

against the BBC is why it feels the need to put out 'like for like' shows to compete with other channels. I resent the BBC's failure in recent years to maintain its long-standing desire to be different by challenging perception and assumptions in relation to what people will watch on a Saturday night between 6pm and 9pm on its prime channels. Part of me suspects this has been contrived by politicians who have threatended the BBC if it became too "elitist".

That it has an unfair competitive advantage in many sectors of broadcasting is fair comment and in particular this has been evident in its publishing and onlibe activities.

Other than that I honestly think that if the BBC disappeared I would question the point of having a television other than to watch films.

As regards Woss I'd be more than happy for the BBC to say: we like him on the radio but we're going to get someone new to do the chat show.

The problem Murdoch V2.0 has is not per se the Licence Fee, it's that (a) Rupe has now decided that free Internet content is Satan's bedfellow and (b) the collapse in advertising revenues. The combination of these 2 means that Skynet (or whatever they're called) feel that a Daily Mail style assault on Public Service Broadcasting in this country is relevant. But as was noted on Radio 4 this morning, who do they blame in the US where there is no PSB to speak of and they're revenues are STILL dropping through the floor?

is the final sentence:

"The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit."

Go figure

How any commercial media organisation in the future will be able to sustain itself in the UK is deeply questionable.

The Guardian Media Group is contemplating the closure of Britain's oldest liberal voice - The Observer - as we speak.

The collapse in advertising revenues is not temporary, caused by the recession - but structural and permanent.

So - a few questions

If the Guardian is struggling, do you think companies like Development Hell will thrive. If The Observer is in danger, do you think The Word might be?

You will have to remind me which part of Murdoch's evil empire is responsible for Big Brother or Heat magazine or the Brand/Ross fiasco.

Could you tell the journalists of the Wall Street Journal and the Times and Sunday Times that they simply are not the equal of those at the BBC

Will you tell all those local journalists being put of work by the BBC's monopoly of local news that their livelihoods are less important than their fellows at the BBC

Could you remind me of the shows as ground-breaking as Sopranos, Wire, Mad Men, Deadwood, Six Feet Under etc etc produced by the BBC

The reason that I proposed a pared down future for the BBC in my earlier point is that I want a vibrant, diverse media landscape - not one where a State behemoth battles a Murdoch one

For all of those ardent and unquestioning champions of the BBC - be careful what you wish for

Where did you get the idea that if the BBC was 'pared down' or gone, then we would have a diverse and rich mix of 'independent' media, and not a monopoly of Sky and American organisations who would have no interest in the cultural landscape of Britain? Same as the stupid website argument. If the BBC pulled its website, do you think that suddenly newspapers will be able to make a profit on their websites? Are they doing so in America?
The whole so-called argument is a howl of anguish from a monopoly organisation who are not making the easy profits they used to. The BBC serves as a useful whipping boy. The argument, as that last grotesque sentence about profit guaranteeing independence shows, is about the Murdoch's 'right' to make profits in the UK. They think that this single motivation trumps what the population of this country may actually want from their media. If you want to go the Murdoch way look at the media in Italy. That's what you will get.

Or BBC news? would anyone who isn't a rabid right winger pick Fox to hear objective reporting?
Sky has ruined football,what's next?

coverage recently* has resembled the mutterings of a crazy old redneck ( or Joe McCarthy). So I take no notice of the offspring of the fool resposible for that bunch of bastards.

* actually it always has but after giving Obama three minutes of praise they have become a full blown asylum

...was when he, Murdoch Jr, described the BBC as 'the Addams Family'.

You couldn't make it up.

He's a dead-eyed chip off the old block for sure, I'm always slightly conflicted about him as he bankrolled Rawkus records back in the 90s which is undoubtedly a good thing.
As for whether he has any good points to make, I guess there is something to be said for the idea that the Beeb has perhaps over-reached itself in some ways, particularly with its obsession with pouncing on any new technology and trying to lead everyone to it willingly or not.
But when he lauds profit as the greatest conceivable driver of "investment, innovation and independence" I really wonder what planet he's currently residing on; surely not the one that's mired in a recession caused in no small part by said profit-seeking in excelsis.
I work in non-terrestrial commercial broadcasting and have done for the best part of 2 decades, profit is not what causes these three "i"s to happen, real innovation comes mostly from what creative people can imagine, sure they need to be paid to have the ideas but really you get the idea that they would most likely be ploughing that furrow anyhow.
Investment follows success just as night follows day it's rarely the other way 'round, just ask ITV after the Friends Reunited fiasco.
As for the pursuit of profit leading to "independence" (I assume he mostly means journalistic independence)that idea doesn't hold a drop of water, and the fact that he expects any sentient person to buy the notion shows how deeply rooted his free market fundamentalist upbringing is.
WORD readers' favourite David "Herc" Simon had some interesting things to say in Edinburgh http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/28/david-simon-the-wire on some closely related issues, his pinpointing of the fact that creatively the pay-TV model is a no-brainer in retrospect but was an innovative godsend at the time it was realised. He describes "The Wire" as a critique of unfettered capitalism but accepts that capitalism is useful for a lot of things. Now that's "Fair and Balanced"!

out of me in the same way that Tescos does. Their thirst for hegemony is truly scary and this latest rant should come as no surprise. There are precious few things that we do in this country better than most others but television is one and the BBC must deserve most of the acclaim for that. Coupled with their World service radio and groundbreaking natural history programmes that are exported the world over we have something to be proud of. In trouble spots throughout the world I have heard repeatedly that the first media source that is turned to on the ground is the BBC. This is largely because of its impartiality and accuracy. If Sky is allowed to march through the media world unchallenged then I think the future is a far more worrying prospect than a strong BBC. Unfortunately the right wing capitalist leaning media appears to have much more clout.

clock your watching/listening habits in terms of hours. Even if you have free view, you have access to 70 odd channels. Which source are you using most? Why is that? You have a free choice...

It's always worth asking questions about the BBC, but a representative of the family that has submerged the world in a tide of media slurry is not the right person to ask them. The thought that another generation of Murdochs is going to start lecturing us in the name of fair play (ie News International profits) is an intensely depressing one.

..anyone interested in what a Murdoch alternative to the BBC News might look like, watch the "Outfoxed" documentary. The Beeb may have it's faults, and recent news coverage has been iffy (as in being dumbed down), but it is generally superior to most other UK TV news media, Channel 4 news excepted maybe, and is a beacon of truth compared to the toxic tide of opinionated slop emanating from the Dirty Digger himself.

"The reason that I proposed a pared down future for the BBC in my earlier point is that I want a vibrant, diverse media landscape - not one where a State behemoth battles a Murdoch one"

How will neutering the BBC achieve the creation of what you desire Sheev? It seems to me what would happen is the clearing of the decks for an even bigger an more pervasive empire for the Murdochs and their political aspirations, with a weakened voice of (relative) balanced honesty heard by fewer people. (And as for Murdoch junior suggesting the public should be trusted in their tastes, I had the misfortune to see on peak-time Sky1 the other evening, two consecutive hours of reality cop-TV would have been even more insulting had I subscribed to it. Is this what the public taste should be sated with according to the Murdochs?).

The thought of losing or even having a weakened and damaged BBC is too appalling to contemplate. Most people get their news from television, newspapers have become a lifestyle choice (ironically reflected in much of their lifestyle based content), and have become largely irrelevant in the news landscape, BBC or no BBC. Do we want the BBC to become minority players like Channel 4, whilst SKY becomes more dominant? I don't think I want to live in that world, thanks.

Unfortunately left to the grubby grip of Sky we would have very little choice in how we receive news information and very little ability to comprehend whether we are being fed bullshit or truth. It is difficult enough as it is to sift through the spin but take away the neutrality of the BBC and we may as well shut up shop and let the dictators take over. Frequent visits to the USA leave me incredulous at the quality of their news reporting and deeply proud of our heritage which should be protected at all costs. Yes the Beeb gets things wrong but overall I would more likely trust their slant on things than that of a profit hungry conglomerate with a vested interest in slanting the bias of a news story to increase their profits.

available via satellite in the holiday bungalow we rented. I wasn't surprised to notice that it's still largely shit. I can't imagine Sky seeing fit to produce 'University Challenge' or 'Gardeners World' or any of the other raft of programmes the odious James would presumably sneer at as unprofitable, so I hope most people can see past his duplicitous warblings.

My last attempt to clarify things

One
James Murdoch has said some important things. Things that needed to be said and just because he is the one saying those things should not obsure the validity of the things he is saying

Two
It is not Sky v BBC that is the key concern. The key concern is the encroachment of the BBC into areas not core to its original principle and remit of Public Service Broadcasting - namely Print and Internet.

Please see attached article via Twitter from David Hepworth

http://bit.ly/LqDPV

Three
The disappearance of Ad revenues and their non-reappearance - ever - will mean that much of the media held dear by many of the posters has no discernible way of sustaining itself.

Four
The BBC is a good thing. It is not a wholly good thing in everything that it does.

If some of the things the BBC does are left unchecked - then that combined with the disappearance of advertising revenue - will mean that other things (C4, The Observer, Rough Guides, local papers) may no longer survive.

Which - conversely - will strengthen Murdoch Inc. And what we will be left with is BBC, Murdoch and Google

I may be wrong. I hope I am. I don't think I am

...but this I do know.

James Murdoch is advancing the interests of his own company. The BBC senior management - arguably the most highly rewarded and feather-bedded class anywhere in the media - are doing the same. The only difference is that the BBC has managed to persuade a lot of people that everything it does is as pure and beneficial as clean water and sunshine and that anyone who criticises it in any way is in the pay of the Armies of the Night. And I speak as someone who would pay the licence fee if it were twice as much. But I might reserve the right to know why they fling my money at "talent" that has nowhere else has to go and why they have to be represented on every new media front.

All the arguments he deploys against the BBC are true (in spades) about broadcasting in China. Especially since the state crudely censor other media sources. Why not bring this up, eh? Can anyone else guess?

I see considerably more anti-Murdoch sentiment on display in this thread than actual arguments in favour of the BBC - with one exception, Andrew Harrison's posts.

And how does Andrew answer the Murdling's attack on the BBC? With a reasoned defence to support the Corporation's steady outward seepage into the traditional realms of print journalism? No. The BBC must be defended, apparently, because - like the NHS, the Red Devils, the Hallé Orchestra and Black Rod's silver-buckled shoes - it is "the envy of the world".

In fact, the world generally has more pressing concerns than casting a longing gaze Blightywards and turning green, as if on cue. In 2009, Britain is just another country. And the BBC is just another broadcaster. The sooner Britain and the Beeb twig to that, the better off both will be, I think.

The BBC's reputation - not unlike Oasis's, as it happens - is based solely on past glories. Of the list of programmes suggested by Andrew to counter Sheev's challenge to come up with shows that match the quality of The Wire or The Sopranos, how many of them were commissioned in the last ten years? Hell, how many were commissioned after most of us here left school?

Andrew could have included The Office and Life on Mars, I suppose. I see that both have been exported to Spain, so somebody somewhere presumably envies them at least a bit. Oh, hang on, it's the American versions of those shows that we get here.

Yes, BBC science documentaries don't just rock, they roll over all the competition. (That's all that BBC envy has been reduced to now, at least in Spain.) But what, pray, has that got to do with State-funded news websites or the State-funded purchase of a series of gap-year guide books?

that is roughly the income that the BBC is guaranteed (guaranteed) every year via the licence fee.

In addition, it makes around £600 million from its commercial enterprises. The commercial arm being wholly reliant on the content provided by the licence fee funded part.

So let's say £4.6 Billion.

That is more than the combined advertising revenues of all national newspapers

More than the combined advertising revenues of Sky,ITV, C4 and C5

These revenues are, of course, anything but guaranteed

Call it what you will - but the words "level playing field" do not spring to mind.

Having to answer to the BBC Trust and work within the BBC's Royal Charter puts constraints on the BBC that the other profit seeking media companies don't have.

I've just has 2 weeks in the USA of "level playing field media" and it's utter, utter shite. Yes, the BBC is guilty of mission creep. Yes, I'd much prefer to see it back out of popullarist bollocks like Strictly Come Dancing and anything involving Andrew Lloyd Webber, but neuter the BBC and all that awaits is media a la the USA and Italy.

I make fairly frequent business trips to the USA. During my visits I have made friends with many of my business partners. The biggest surprise though is how far right leaning most of them are and their attitude towards the American media. They seriously dub CNN the Communist News Network which is fairly incredible but true. The strength of the mainstream media over there is frightening but if you want to be truly scared listen to one of the many Republican backed talk shows in the run up to any election. Poisonous doesn't begin to describe it. I am sure there are many countries worldwide where an opposing left wing view is equally hard to stomach which is exactly why our more evenly balanced news reporting is so important.

I think the licence fee is tremendous value for money. One years worth is less than I pay per month for my council tax and its 20% of my house insurance premium. I have a sky subscription too because I am a big fan of darts/motorsports and the movie channels. Now that is expensive.

I think modern tv is poor compared with the output of say 10 years ago. Everyone is producing dumbed down programmes, they are few documentaries and little drama. Today's programmes are about people making a buck, becoming a celebrity or 'going on a journey'. Everything is explained to you twice - Dragon's Den is a good example.

As to newspapers - I gave up buying them years ago. I do not have the time to read them and get the info off the tv/radio/net. Perhaps I am partly to cause for the problems with the state of the printed word - but in the 21C the concept of printing words on paper is is old fashioned and I for one do not feel guilty about ridding myself of this quaint method of communication!

The purpose of Murdoch Jr's speech was not to make serious points about broadcasting.

It was to put a price tag on 2010's 'It's the Sun wot won it' headline.

Murdoch's stinging attack on what he views as a paternalistic, monopolistic BBC during the recent MacTaggart Lecture brought a terse and predictable response from the BBC. The arguments re-ignited by Murdoch are old ones. They have been repeated regularly since 1922. Even more revealing than Murdoch's rant is the BBC's response. More on my blog; http://www.centreforjournalism.co.uk/blogs/james-murdoch-analysis-bbc-li...

The BBC should be expanding, not shrinking out of areas coveted by the Murdoch family business. I'd like to see the BBC double the licence fee and use the money to move into the newspaper business. If we can have independent licence-fee paid TV, radio and internet services (and LP and Radio Times and BBC Books), why not an independent print and online newspaper service run by the BBC? The advertising model is no longer working for local newspapers, so why not adopt a business model that works and preserves independence and quality? I'd rather read a local paper run along BBC lines than the ones now being set up with ratepayers/taxpayers money by local councils.

I think all news organisations are now regretting giving away their content online and see the BBC's free news site as an obstacle to charging for their own service. This is surely muddle-headed. I don't think The Sun provides anything like the same content as the BBC. People may or may not pay to access The Sun online but whether they do or don't won't have anything to do with the BBC.

Just an observation from the western side of Offa's Dyke - if the BBC goes, what's left that could be labelled 'British', especially so in post-devolution 'Britain'?

Look at Sky in China. When papa's boy stands up and says something similar to his undergraduate outpouring (in that weird accent of his, and even weirder tie) in Beijing, then we might consider paying attention. Shame on Word for giving him a platform (he's already got a failed social networking site of his own to play with).

I love the BBC, I loved the BBC before the internet days and I still love it now.

Murdoch Junior makes a valid point, however the Murdoch Clan was taking the other view when the Sport was gobbled up.

The BBC said it couldn't justify that level of licence payers money.

So most of us got our Sky Sports and paid £X per month and grumbled about the licence fee, which we pay a lot less for and get far more.

There's largely rubbish on most of the Sky Channels, without the Sport it would go in this household.

As for The Sun, well the common opinion is that the content isn't worth paying for, yet people still buy the paper in volumes.

Most people get their news from the BBC, whether it be the web, radio or tv, that's not going to change. The only new thing is that you can get it on the net.

As mentioned earlier, I'd take Murdoch a lot more serious, if they paid the taxes on their UK Businesses to the UK.

With no personal links to any media organization, it makes sense to look at the cost and benefit of the BBC, as opposed to alternative ways of spending my money. According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/ , annual costs works out roughly as follows:-

BBC1 £57
BBC2 £24
BBC3 £8 (split other TV evenly between 3 and 4)
BBC4 £8
Radio £24
Digital £7.50

There are obvious caveats with these - at the very least

1. Arguably the digital number is (deliberately?) low, because it reuses production costs (news etc) allocated elsewhere - this is the Murdoch argument, and it rings true, because I don't believe you can deliver what they do on £7.50 p.a.!

2. I'd like to split out the radio more - be interesting to know what the break is between production costs on R4 and R3, and presenter costs on R2/R1

3. This whole lot looks cheap - probably because the BBC has massive assets (buildings etc) which a commercial organization would be paying for.

4. These numbers will be very massaged (as would any commercial organizations), and really require some more detailed analysis - sadly, my real life is dragging me away.

Personally, I'd shut BBC1 tomorrow. And use the savings to increase budgets on the stuff I like - unfortunately, many other licence fee payers would like to kill off R4, BBC4 and BBC2 and spend more on presenters.

Since we all have to pay the tax (because that's clearly what it is) the ONLY way to decide the allocation is via politics/civil servants i.e. exactly what happens now.

The free market alternative would provide more choice (in the sense of optional services) but I'm pretty sure that my personal package (everything except BBC1) would cost rather more than the £56 the numbers above suggest - but then if its less that £142, I'm still winning.

But lets say the cost of my chosen packages under the free market quadrupled - to £224 p.a., for example. Would I be happy with that? Well maybe, because my views (represented by my money) would be reflected in channel output - and that might be a way to arrest the slide downwards. An extreme example - R4 decides to commit 12 hours a day to "Thought For The Day" - I cancel my subscription.

There is also a moral dimension, of course - if I disapprove of, say, a particular NI columnist , I can withdraw my custom. If I disapprove of, say Jonathan Ross, I do not have the same option (has anybody TRIED to cancel their licence fee).

And before someone jumps in and tells me that it will cost a lot more than that, because Sky does ... YOUR chosen channels may be paying the salaries of footballers etc - mine will not.

...puts it in a (scatalogical and intertextual) nutshell for us here I think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/sep/05/charlie-brooker-on-james-m...

It's the old 'Chickens coming home to roost' syndrome at play here.
The guy looks like someone who has just been caught on a dodgy website.
Eyes darting, shoulder shrugging, hand gesturing, he looked and sounded just like a one legged New Labour minister at an ass kicking party - BITTER! He quoted 'Land Grabbing,' well the Aussies know all about that, I can just see the Aborigines boycotting the BBC now he's brought that up! Have you ever watched Fox? Its logo should be changed to a Swastika with Heir O'Rielly goose-stepping on to screen to present his 'X' factor.

This young tyke has been handed a media empire on a Wedgwood plate and is totally unconvincing. His sister is sucking money out of the industry hand over 'clenched' fist with her production company Shine who 'Kidnapped' Kudos TV, enslaved them under the Shine umbrella simultaneously acquiring shows such as Spooks, Law And Order UK, MI High, Hustle, Ashes to Ashes, The Fixer, Life On Mars and the obligatory crap movies the our industry keeps churning out. Coincidence?

When Rupert was mercilessly ejected from LWT by the IBA his vendetta against the British Broadcasters was set in motion and trust me, he won't stop until he has destroyed all of them. (Mind you the way most of them are operating I don't have much sympathy for them) When SKY was born 'old' Rupert's first victim was the very same IBA.

The TV companies are pretty much doing the job for him with the the dire rubbish they put out. Remember this guy's rags are responsible for headlines like 'Freddie Starr ate my hamster' and 'Jamaica, a land of druggies'. I say you get what you deserve and I guess we deserve The Murdoch 'Adams' Family. Remember I told you so.

Watch this space.