Easy.

They invented football, back in '92.

but besides that not a lot. Their money will eventually ruin Football, and the day Test cricket left terrestrial telly was a sad day, but at least they haven't got their dirty mitts on Le Tour...yet!

for which we should be forever thankful.

I used to subscribe to Sky but got heartily fed up with paying premium prices to watch endless repeats.Granted their are some aspects of Sky T.V I miss,the football,Sky Arts but frankly nowt else.Murdoch's posture over the B.B.C I find disturbing and dread the thought of his media empire expanding to engulf public broadcasting.

That's it.

Sky's done virtually nothing for British TV. For British society it's done less. Re-broadcasting content originated elsewhere (that includes football). Fox, for a very obvious reason, originates a vast amount of content; some of it sublime, much of it poor and politically depressing. If you haven't read it anywhere else, as the election in the country nears, you will see Sky News begin to look more like the Fox TV clips you see. Their position will become clearer, more to the right, more aligned with NewsCorps' newspapers. Sky+ a benefit? You can get that technology anywhere. Sky Arts is the only thing I wish I could watch.

...but I don't think Sky would like to destroy the BBC any more than ITV would like to destroy Channel 4 or the BBC would like to destroy Setanta. If it did destroy the BBC it would find itself having to provide lots of things that the BBC currently provide - and they wouldn't want to do that. It's like the old relationship between BBC and ITV in the cosy old world of the duopoly. ITV wanted to do the things that brought in the big audiences. BBC wanted to do all the things that helped justify its claim to the licence fee. All these media organisations compete, of course, but they compete for different things - advertising, subscription, bandwidth, slack from government and so on. I'm sure they'd like to clip the BBC's wings but so would all the country's newspaper groups. It's a mean world out there and there's not one of these organisations that's above using every bit of weight they've got - involving fair means or foul - to get their way. What they all want to do is keep everybody else's tanks off their particular bit of the lawn. The BBC is always the first one they pick on because they've got a lot of tanks and we bought them.

given us choice although not always a better choice I'll admit. It depends what you're after but in my world 24 hour access to sport news, live cricket coverage from around the world, Mythbusters, the joy The Simpsons brings my kids, the pleasure QVC brings my wife, Sky + and as mentioned above Jeff Stelling and Co is worth every penny which equates to less than 20 cigarettes a day.

You don't need Apple
You don't need Google
You don't need as many marques of car
As many brands of shampoo
As many types of product
as many shops
more than one political party
as much choice

All you need is the BBC, The Guardian, The Beatles and a nice cup of tea.

An inconvenient truth is that football (not just football on TV) is just better since Sky than in the blue-remembered hills of yesteryear....

Because actually, the only reason I have Sky TV is for Sky+ and very occasionally Sky Box Office. We have the most basic TV package it's possible to have with them, but we make big savings on phone and broadband because of that.

There's nothing at all on the Sky channels which I would be interested in watching - it's sub-ITV shit, almost without exception.

There's a reason for that. Murdoch is the classic example of the right-wing philistine (for clarity, I'm not saying that all right-wing people are philistines, but some are, and Murdoch is the nonpareil). He only believes in money and markets, and he only really believes in markets if they happen to benefit him (see his allegedly decidedly iffy dealings with the Chinese). He is without ideology, other than "money is lovely", without culture, without a single thought in his head apart from how better to make money. He doesn't even want to be in charge of everything, he just wants to make money from it. I doubt there's a more pitiable man on the face of the planet. Sure, he and others would probably snort and say "oh yeah, pity the billionaire? Jog on, son", and I would retort "fuck YES". I don't hate the poor old fucker, I just shudder at the thought of existing in such a complete vacuum of ideas and culture. He can keep his billions.

Anyway, sorry. To resume: he wants to make money, so his channels put out what they think people will buy. He's right, they do buy it. But it's going to struggle to have real merit, because he's running art by focus group, in essence.

But he's fine, because art isn't important: he's making money, and money is everything, so all's well with the world. The conditions for real art and the conditions for making potloads of cash are rarely the same. That's why 6Music and the like are so important: they wouldn't ever make any cash, but they enrich the culture. Murdoch doesn't give a fuck about the culture - he just wants to make more money and pay less tax.

Although, who am I to talk? I pay him 40 quid a month because his bundled services work out cheaper than the competition. I ignore my distaste for his empire because I want to save money. Oh dear.

as yet not many programmes getting votes apart from the dubious charms of QVC and the ever contentious subject of SKY's effect on god's own game.
I believe other hard drive PVR's are available! Being a cheap b*stard I rigged up an old laptop (screen was cracked) with a usb freeview card connected to a tv (it even has a remote) which works fine and only cost £40 assuming the laptop was right off!

I know, it's subscription only, but sports coverage is roughly a million times better than it ever was on terrestrial.

anyone?

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/tv/vplus-hd-box.html

... but I point blank refuse to spend money on anything which will make Murdoch a profit of any kind and have done this since I was in my teens.

So that means no Sky, no The Sun, no The Times, no books published by Harpercollins.

I am permitted to access them online (as I did when The Times broke the story about the threats to music), and I am permitted to buy the books second hand. The point is Murdoch gets none of my cash.

He's an evil, dynastic, oligarch who pretends to be an outsider while cosying up to the powers that be who, because they fear him, taylor policy to benefit him. He is the personification of everything I despise.

I know that this is slightly pathetic and indeed pointless. But if everyone would do the same then it wouldn't be...

... Dave Spratt is the more politically correct than thou lefty, whose diatribes against the capitalist system have a habit of tailing off as he gets more and more confused about what he's ranting about.

I certainly don't begrudge Murdoch an underground lair or a white cat to stroke. I do begrudge his damaging political influence though... Sadly a one man boycott of his products appear to have had zero effect.

It's one of the Top 10 best inventions ever.

And it shows Lost.

I'm no massive fan, but I'm glad it exists. I do find studenty Murdoch bashing awfully tiresome. Yeah, yeah, we know all about how evil he and his empire is.

Now shut up and watch the show. Or Sky+ it.

dominant position in rugby (my favourite sport) and soccer, I do have to wonder. A subscription costs somewhere between a game or two per month. Which isn't bad value at all for the volume of games you can access.

That said, I don't subscribe and prefer to watch my local, Championship rubgy club twice a month. As for the other stuff, I miss "House" and one or two other shows but it's not the end of the world and I can always get the box set when it comes down in price. But even as it is, I can barely keep up with the supply of good books and good music without getting more and more and more media backlogged on my "to do" list.

Sky (and Channel 4) gave the BBC an almighty kick up the arse where the summer game is concerned. Think back to the times of Tony Lewis burbling about nothing in particular. Yes it was all jolly nice and comfy and smelled of linseed oil and warm leather but the shake Sky and Four gave things has improved coverage no end. Would the BBC have grasped Hawkeye, Snickometers, stump mikes, HotSpot and the like quite so eagerly? And let us not forget 20/20. Much is it is anathaema to the purists, it is dragging a great deal of money into the game, a great deal of which comes because of Sky coverage.

And is it fair to point the accusing finger at Sky as regards footy's current woes? I don't think so. They provide coverage and money. They don't tell clubs what to do with the money. Maybe they should..

...C4 were innovative, refreshed the format, and they had the good sense to employ Richie Benaud. However, having also committed to horse racing in a big way, there was far too much 'popping over to Haydock for the 2:20, but don't worry because you won't miss a thing at the cricket'. except you will, because if it ain't live, you've missed it.
The BBC got worse over time, as their commitment to news, local news and three types of weather forecast on the hour, every hour made their coverage patchy and disjointed. With a number of the presenters being embarrassingly amateurish (I could only watch Tony Lewis from behind the sofa) the whole thing became stale and dated. They too were overly keen to bugger off elsewhere. In their case it was always Ascot or Wimbledon. Or cutting the coverage because it's time for Tomorrow's World.
Now, my argument would be, if you're going to bid for it and show it, then do it properly. Which Sky do. Extensive, ball-by-ball coverage, for which they've paid handsomely, including England tour matches and games from worldwide. I understand that neither the BBC nor C4 were much interested in bidding anyway, and are not necessarily filled with delight at the prospect of future Tests being A-listed as events which must be shown on terrestrial TV.
It would be perhaps better if the game were available free-to-air (The Great Benaud made it clear from the start that he's always been a 'free-to-air' man) but if neither the will nor the cash, in this country at least, is there, then Sky do a decent and professional job. I'm still quite delighted that I can get up at 4AM and watch a live test match if I feel like it. Now, if only they'd get rid of Botham and Gower...

...C4 were innovative, refreshed the format, and they had the good sense to employ Richie Benaud. However, having also committed to horse racing in a big way, there was far too much 'popping over to Haydock for the 2:20, but don't worry because you won't miss a thing at the cricket'. except you will, because if it ain't live, you've missed it.
The BBC got worse over time, as their commitment to news, local news and three types of weather forecast on the hour, every hour made their coverage patchy and disjointed. With a number of the presenters being embarrassingly amateurish (I could only watch Tony Lewis from behind the sofa) the whole thing became stale and dated. They too were overly keen to bugger off elsewhere. In their case it was always Ascot or Wimbledon. Or cutting the coverage because it's time for Tomorrow's World.
Now, my argument would be, if you're going to bid for it and show it, then do it properly. Which Sky do. Extensive, ball-by-ball coverage, for which they've paid handsomely, including England tour matches and games from worldwide. I understand that neither the BBC nor C4 were much interested in bidding anyway, and are not necessarily filled with delight at the prospect of future Tests being A-listed as events which must be shown on terrestrial TV.
It would be perhaps better if the game were available free-to-air (The Great Benaud made it clear from the start that he's always been a 'free-to-air' man) but if neither the will nor the cash, in this country at least, is there, then Sky do a decent and professional job. I'm still quite delighted that I can get up at 4AM and watch a live test match if I feel like it. Now, if only they'd get rid of Botham and Gower...

I've never subscribed to any of their services

I did, though, apply for a job with them last year. It took their HR department over a month to arrange a telephone interview, then another month to arrange the follow-up face-to-face interview, and another month after that to finally bother to send out a rejection letter even after I was almost assured I had the job. Deplorable, really.

And after all of that buggering about, I'll never consider taking any of their services again.

I quite like their Terry Pratchett adaptations.

Murdoch's still a waste of space though.

They looked great to be sure, but were as confusing as hell for the initiated and had no clear plot lines or narrative.

Sky Arts occasionally produces some interesting programming, but that's it.

Generally, Sky's contribution to British culture has been terrible - poaching premium content (sports, popular imported programmes etc.) in order to drive their own subscriptions, producing bugger all worthwhile content of their own and flooding the market with low-quality filler and imports, and guiding us towards the kind of multichannel nightmare we have now where there are hundreds of TV channels but only a handful worth watching.

countdowns rubbish and on C4 anyway