Big Media, Murdoch and the BBC

The current Murdoch BSkyB story is an illustration of what Engdahl refers to as Big Media. It has frequently been stated that the world’s media is effectively in the hands of a few media moguls. The repercussions of this are evident:

When media companies dominate their markets, it undercuts our democracy. Justice Hugo Black, in a landmark media-ownership case in 1945, wrote: ‘The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public. These big companies are not antagonistic; they do billions of dollars in business with each other. They don’t compete; they cooperate to inhibit competition. 

http://wilsonsalmanac.blogspot.com/2005/10/ted-turner-on-dangers-of-big-media.html 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html

You may be thinking that the good old Beeb is free from any of these issues. However, this appears to be far from the truth. What we now have on BBC news is a limited selection of stories taken from a particular angle and rarely showing an alternative viewpoint. The BBC has adopted a practice of  interviewing their own reporters who give us their opinion of things. Worse still they deal in predictions. Such comments as “If this trend continues we could see…” mean very little. Its supposed to be news not predictions. There is an important difference. 

The content has been dumbed down to contain many human interest stories which have sometimes completely dominated the news to the exclusion of other important stories. This appears to be a growing trend. 

News will always be biased but if you want to see the stories you don’t get on mainstream then try Russia Today  or Al Jazeera for a change, where you will frequently find US, British and European politicians in discussion on matters or angles that will receive no coverage on British mainstream. Are you thinking I must be some sort of dissident? Well, the definition of that is: disagreeing, someone who disagrees, so that would be correct. I disagree with the biased reporting on selected subjects to the exclusion of other important subjects that now seems to form the basis of mainstream news presentation, this applies to the BBC in particular, which I see as little better than brainwashing and propaganda. I’m not saying that Russia Today www.rt.com or Aljazeera  www.aljazeera.com are unbiased. My point is that by using a variety of sources this can help to provide more balance than is the case if we listen exclusively to dumbed-down one-sided reporting. 

 ITN reporter, Peter Sissons became very aware of  the BBC  ‘mindset’. He reports that certain subjects were considered intrinsically good  and were always to be given positive coverage whereas other subjects were not touched upon or not in a positive manner.

 At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left……

All Governments work hard on influencing the news agenda, but what I found uncomfortable during my years presenting the Nine O’clock and Ten O’clock News was how blatant those attempts to pressurise the BBC became, particularly at General Election time.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html 

If you prefer media shaken and stirred the BBC is probably not what you are looking for.

Leading beyond authority?

 Do civil servants control government? 

https://freeasthysweetmountainair.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/civil-servants-don%e2%80%99t-run-departments/

Well, who can tell? Without a Freedom of Information Act we are really in the dark. However, there are some revealing comments in a report by a standing committee looking into a Corporate Leadership Group. The committee found that the group was:

not corporate, not exclusively about leadership and is not a group as it never meets.

That sounds damning enough but we are also informed that this resulted in less accountability and led to top earners earning more. The committee is of the opinion that the declared aims of the group could have been achieved under the previous working methods and that it had not been necessary to change senior officers’ terms of employment to achieve an aim of enhanced learning and development. I

f you’re going to create your own jobs and terms and conditions then why not make it worthwhile? Why not award yourself pay rises above the going rate? It seems the Civil Service Commission was asked to approve rates of pay above equivalent posts in the UK. 

The committee will present the report to Tynwald next week. It contains eight recommendations. One of which suggests that each Corporate Leadership Group role should be appraised every five years. 

 It sounds rather like being a law unto themselves. Could this be leading beyond authority?  https://freeasthysweetmountainair.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-uk-connection/

We really need to know what’s going on in government and the sooner the better. While some are being made redundant others seem able to award themselves pay rises. The Freedom of Information Act is not going to happen in this term of government but it should be an urgent matter for the next government.