By SUSIL GUPTA
http://www.counterpunch.org/gupta07152011.html
So far the News International scandal, which is only just unravelling, has focused almost exclusively on 'phone-hacking' and the invasion of privacy by Murdoch's print media. Although this has considerable celebrity and 'human interest' value, it entirely misses the main game.
Murdock's newspaper business in Britain, though mostly profitable, is small beer financially when compared to his television and entertainment interests. Murdoch long ago ceased to be a traditional press baron. He is no Citizen Kane. Unlike newspapers, which anyone can print, television broadcasting is a highly regulated and highly politicised business, because in every country the state is eager to retain control of the main opinion-forming media, and because taxes and broadcast rights generate enormous revenues. TV broadcasting is in the gift of the political class, and even a minor 'regulatory difficulty' can cost a media company billions, or shut it out of the market completely.
Therefore any media giant keen to be involved in broadcast in any country must have considerable influence over the political elite that ultimately takes the decision to grant or withhold licences and concessions.
This is why, for example, Murdoch still owns London's Times newspaper. It has never made a profit and will never make a profit. Every year it loses around £40 million, which is an expensive hobby. But The Times is read by everyone in Britain 'whose opinion matters'. If you think it is useful to talk to the Britain's political elite every morning, then £40 million is a small price to pay compared to the billions you could lose by a failure to influence the right people. Murdoch's newspapers provide the influence that keeps the political class in check, which in turn creates a permissive environment to further his broadcast interests.
Murdock's newspaper business in Britain, though mostly profitable, is small beer financially when compared to his television and entertainment interests. Murdoch long ago ceased to be a traditional press baron. He is no Citizen Kane. Unlike newspapers, which anyone can print, television broadcasting is a highly regulated and highly politicised business, because in every country the state is eager to retain control of the main opinion-forming media, and because taxes and broadcast rights generate enormous revenues. TV broadcasting is in the gift of the political class, and even a minor 'regulatory difficulty' can cost a media company billions, or shut it out of the market completely.
Therefore any media giant keen to be involved in broadcast in any country must have considerable influence over the political elite that ultimately takes the decision to grant or withhold licences and concessions.
This is why, for example, Murdoch still owns London's Times newspaper. It has never made a profit and will never make a profit. Every year it loses around £40 million, which is an expensive hobby. But The Times is read by everyone in Britain 'whose opinion matters'. If you think it is useful to talk to the Britain's political elite every morning, then £40 million is a small price to pay compared to the billions you could lose by a failure to influence the right people. Murdoch's newspapers provide the influence that keeps the political class in check, which in turn creates a permissive environment to further his broadcast interests.
In every broadcast industry in the world, TV and entertainment conglomerates own not-very-profitable newspapers and radio interests because they provide a parallel source of influence. That is the real relationship between commercial TV and the printed press across all nations where broadcasting is not dominated by a state monopoly. Today my papers do a favour for you by keeping a bad story out or saying something nice about you, tomorrow I may call on you to a favour for me...read more
http://www.counterpunch.org/gupta07152011.html
