I cannot recall hearing of such a petulant outburst from the normally stately and dignified BBC:
The controller of BBC1 launched an unprecedented attack on Rupert Murdoch yesterday, calling the media billionaire a “capital imperialist” who wants to destabilise the corporation because he “is against everything the BBC stands for”.
Sounds like my kind of guy.
Lorraine Heggessey said Mr Murdoch’s continued attacks on the BBC stemmed from a dislike of the public sector. But he did not understand that the British people “have a National Health Service, a public education system” and trust organisations that are there for the benefit of society and not driven by profit.
Methinks the executives of the BBC sense that they are in trouble. They realise that ‘Auntie’ no longer enjoys an exalted status as a national treasure and, hence, is vulnerable.
The time-honoured and global reputation for fairness, accuracy and objectivity is something they have dined out on, abused and terminally tarnished. And, even if this were not the case, in an era when the market provides so many choices, it is impossible to stem the growing discontent with the arcane and punitive television tax that funds the BBC.
But it’s all the fault of Rupert Murdoch and his band of evil capitalists. (Oh, and George Bush of course).
I’ve said it before and I will say it again. The lack of advertising on the bbc is a huge plus in my book. Although I wish they wouldn’t plug themselves so much.
I’ll yield to no one in my contempt for the smug Toynbeeism of the BBC (and Heggessey is one of its worst), but it’s just as well not to lose sight of how repellent Rupert Murdoch’s influence can be.
The Times truly was ‘the newspaper of record’ once. Today, under Murdoch’s bleak reign, it has become nothing but a platform for his woefully wrong-headed support for Blair and his thugs. Particularly revolting has been the way Times hacks have cravenly supported the Campbell/Blair lie-machine during the Hutton enquiry. The Sun, while having no credibility to lose, has been just as bad.
Yes, the BBC has to go. But not just so as to serve the ambitions of Prince Rupert Murdoch.
Wow, the entire excerpted quote from the BBC hack could have been spoken by Castro. Who says communism is dead.
Makes one wonder if the Beeb’s higher-ups hear that bell tolling.
Being a Yank, I found the term “Capital Imperialist” being used by an executive officer of the BBC very amusing. I don’t believe even the most left-wing or liberal of the mainstream media here in the US would ever publicly accuse a competitor or rival in such terms (although they may think it privately).
OT: In the sidebar of the quoted article from the Independent there is an advertisement which says “Robert Fisk – Read Our Middle East Correspondent’s Challenging Reports”. Har, “challenging” indeed!
Obviously the BBC believes that flattery will get you places.
“Capital Imperialist” – If I were Rupert I would be pretty happy with that.
She forgot “running dog”.
You’ve got to hand it to Murdoch – getting people to pay money to watch Sky, and then feeding them 16 minutes of adverts an hour. He’d sell his own granny, and probably has done already.
I’m not a fan of Mr. Murdoh but I don’t loathe the guy either. I think this outburst from the BBC is very childish. Seems it’s easier to attack someone else, to get the attention off you, than to stand your ground and defend.
Of course, that presupposes you have anything to stand on and defend.
“Capital” as an adjective means “excellent” or “first rate”. So either Ms Heggessey is describing Mr. Murdoch as a first rate imperialist (meaning what?) or she’s just illiterate. Not bad for the controller of BBC1.
“The lack of advertising on the bbc is a huge plus in my book.”
Why is that, zack? I personally find the adverts to be among the best written, best produced, and often wittiest things on the tube. Also some of the most irritating.
“The lack of advertising on the bbc is a huge plus in my book.”
Why is that, zack? I personally find the adverts to be among the best written, best produced, and often wittiest things on the tube. Also some of the most irritating.
Unfortunately, very few ads are shown on both sides of the Atlantic, but there
G Cooper,
Caveats duly noted, however it is thanks to Rupert Murdoch that the element of competition was introduced into British broadcasting. Without him we would still be lumbered with a paternalistic, state-regulated TV-cartel.
So, in a sense, he is at least partly responsible for the current plight of the BBC.
David Carr writes:
“So, in a sense, he is at least partly responsible for the current plight of the BBC.”
I think I would half agree. Murdoch did deal the BBC a serious blow, for which he deserves grateful thanks, but we need to remember that he did, in passing, take out an alternative satellite rival (the original BSB).
Meanwhile, though I delighted in seeing what Fox News did in the Iraq war and much admire Fox’s imaginative fiction programming, I can’t get the taste of Murdoch’s ‘New’ Labour cronyism out of my mouth.
I suppose, in the end, I just don’t want a neo-born-again Xtian, Australian-Celtic-twilight-chip-on-the-shoulder-anti-establishment megalomaniac running our media.
Then again, Greg Dyke isn’t much of an alternative, I freely admit.
Just curious: but how are the circulation numbers for Murdoch’s UK papers? Up or down? Looks to me like the Sun was way up in 2002, the Guardian was down. The Times was way down.
Plenty of choices for news in the UK and some seem to enjoy Murdoch’s papers, others don’t. So what’s the problem?
R McLeod enquires:
“Plenty of choices for news in the UK and some seem to enjoy Murdoch’s papers, others don’t. So what’s the problem?”
With his newspapers? Not much (other than that they’re pretty poor – but we have a choice).
The trouble with Murdoch is his hegemony over satellite broadcasting in the UK and his attempts to remove rivals from the broadcasting scene.
CF Bill Gates….