Monday, February 21, 2011

PROFILE: Murdoch and what sells his newspapers..sex and paedophiles...

News of the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
News of the World
Newsoftheworld.jpg
This inaccurate headline on the private life of Max Mosley was the subject of successful litigation in the case Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited
TypeWeekly newspaper
FormatTabloid
OwnerNews Group Newspapers
(News International)
EditorColin Myler
Founded1843
Political alignmentConservative
HeadquartersWapping, London
Circulation2,812,005 October 2010
Official websitewww.newsoftheworld.co.uk/
The News of the World is a national tabloid newspaper published in the United Kingdom every Sunday. It is published by News Group Newspapers of News International, itself a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and is the Sunday sister paper of The Sun. The newspaper concentrates on celebrity-based scoops and populist news. Its fondness for sex scandals gained it the nicknames "News of the Screws" and "Screws of the World". It also has a reputation for exposing celebrities as drug users or criminals and setting up insiders and journalists in disguise to provide either video or photographic evidence. With sales averaging 2,812,005 copies per week in October 2010,[1] the News of the World is the largest selling English-language newspaper in the world.[2] On 16 September 2010, it was announced that the online website of the paper would be placed behind a paywall.[3]
The editor Andy Coulson resigned on 26 January 2007 over the royal phone tapping scandal.[4] He was succeeded by Colin Myler, a former editor of the Sunday Mirror who had latterly worked at the New York Post. Previous editors of the paper include Piers Morgan and Rebekah Wade who replaced Phil Hall in 2000.

Contents

[hide]

History

The newspaper was first published on 1 October 1843, in London by John Browne Bell. Priced at just three pence, even before the repeal of the Stamp Act (1855) or paper duty (1861), it was the cheapest newspaper of its time and was aimed directly at the newly literate working classes. It quickly established itself as a purveyor of titillation, shock and criminal news. Much of the source material came from coverage of vice prosecutions, including transcripts of police descriptions of alleged brothels, streetwalkers, and 'immoral' women.
Before long the News of the World established itself as the most widely read Sunday paper, with initial sales of around 12,000 copies a week. Sales then suffered because the price was not cut following the abolition of newspaper taxes and the paper was soon no longer among the leading Sunday titles, selling around 30,000 by 1880, a greater number but a smaller proportion as newspaper sales had grown hugely. The title was sold by the Bell family in 1891 to Lascelles Carr who owned the Welsh "Western Mail". As editor he installed his nephew Emsley Carr, who held the post for 50 years. But the real engine of the paper's now quick commercial success was George Riddell who reorganised its national distribution using local agents. Matthew Engel in his book "Tickle the Public: One Hundred Years of the Popular Press" (Gollancz, 1996) says that the "News of The World" of the 1890s was "a very fine paper indeed". The paper was not without its detractors, though. As one writer later related:
Frederick Greenwood, editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, met in his club one day Lord Riddell, who died a few years ago, and in the course of conversation Riddell said to him, `You know, I own a paper.' `Oh, do you?' said Greenwood, 'what is it?' `It's called the News of the World—I'll send you a copy,' replied Riddell, and in due course did so. Next time they met Riddell said, 'Well Greenwood, what do you think of my paper?' 'I looked at it,' replied Greenwood, 'and then I put it in the waste-paper basket. And then I thought, "If I leave it there the cook may read it" —so I burned it!'[5]
By 1912 the circulation was two million and around three million by the early 1920s. Sales reached four million by 1939. This success encouraged other similar newspapers, of which the Sunday People, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror are still being published.
Its motto was "All human life is there". The paper's name was linked with sports events as early as 1903 when the golfing tournament The News of the World Match Play Championship began (now under British PGA auspices). The News of the World Darts Championship existed from 1927 on a regional basis and became a national tournament from 1947 to 1990. There was also a News of the World Championship in snooker from 1950 to 1959 which eclipsed the official professionals' competition for a number of years. In athletics, the Emsley Carr Mile race was started in 1953 in memory of the former editor, and is still run today. The paper's Football Annual is a long-standing publication, and a Household Guide and Almanac was also published at one time.
By 1950 the News of the World had become the biggest-selling newspaper in the world with a weekly sale of 8,441,000 and individual editions sold over 9 million copies.
In 1928 the paper began printing in Manchester on the presses of the News Chronicle in Derby Street, moving in 1960 into Thomson House, Withy Grove (formerly known as Kemsley House) when the News Chronicle closed. The move to Thomson House led to the immediate closure of the Empire News, a paper printed there and mainly circulating in the North of England and Wales with a circulation of about 2.5 million. Officially the Empire News and News of the World merged but Thomson House was already printing the Sunday Pictorial (to become the Sunday Mirror) and Sunday Times and did not have any further capacity with the News of the World arriving. In 1985 the News of the World moved out of Thomson House when it was bought by the tycoon Robert Maxwell (and renamed Maxwell House) and after a short spell on the Daily Express presses in Great Ancoats Street moved to a new plant at Knowsley on Merseyside.

Murdoch purchase

The newspaper passed into the hands of Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd. in 1969, snatching the paper from Robert Maxwell's Pergamon Press after an acrimonious year-long struggle. Maxwell's foreign origin, combined with his political opinions, provoked a hostile response to his bid from the Carrs and from the editor of the News of the World, Stafford Somerfield, who declared that the paper was—and should remain—as British as roast beef and Yorkshire pudding.
News Ltd. arranged to swap shares in some of its minor ventures with the Carrs and by December it controlled 40 percent of the NOTW stock. Maxwell had been supported by the Jackson family (25% shareholders), but Murdoch had gained the support of the Carr family (30%) and then-chairman William Carr.
In January 1969, Maxwell's bid was rejected at a shareholders' meeting where half of those present were company staff, temporarily given voting shares. It was Murdoch's first Fleet Street acquisition. Maxwell accused Murdoch of employing "the laws of the jungle" to acquire the paper and said he had "made a fair and bona fide offer... which has been frustrated and defeated after three months of [cynical] manoeuvring." Murdoch denied this, arguing the shareholders of the News of the World Group had "judged [his] record in Australia."
Illness removed Sir William Carr from the chairmanship in June 1969, and Murdoch succeeded him.
The newspaper has often had to defend itself from libel charges and complaints to the Press Complaints Commission as a result of certain news-gathering techniques, such as entrapment, and contentious campaigns. Some of the best-known cases have been the "Bob and Sue" case with reporter Neville Thurlbeck, and various cases involving journalist Mazher Mahmood.[6][7]
From 1981 a magazine ("Sunday") was included with the paper, and in 1984 the paper itself changed from broadsheet to tabloid format. The paper is printed in London, Liverpool, Dinnington near Sheffield, Portsmouth and Glasgow, with separate Irish editions produced in Belfast and near Dublin. It is also printed at a number of sites abroad including Madrid, Brussels, Cyprus and Orlando in Florida, USA.


Anti-paedophile campaign

The paper began a controversial campaign to name and shame alleged paedophiles in 2000 following the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne. The paper's decision led to angry mobs terrorising those they suspected of being child sex offenders,[8] which included several cases of mistaken identity, including one instance where a paediatrician had her house vandalised[9] and another where a man was confronted because he had a neck brace similar to one a paedophile was wearing when pictured.[10][11] The campaign was labelled "grossly irresponsible" journalism by the then Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, Tony Butler.[12] The paper also campaigns for the introduction of 'Sarah's Law' to allow public access to the Sex Offenders Register.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11455603

OCTOBER 2010...SARAHS LAW was rolled out to Leicestershire...remember how Sara Payne and Jim Gamble sided with the McCanns when Gamble resigned from CEOP?

SARAHS LAW is MURDOCHS baby.....




Libel actions brought against the News of the World

  • In 2005, England footballer David Beckham and his wife Victoria brought a legal action against the paper seeking libel damages over an article that carried the headline: "Posh and Becks on the Rocks." The legal action was withdrawn in 2006 and "resolved on a confidential basis," according to the couple's spokeswoman Jo Milloy.
  • In April 2006, England footballer Wayne Rooney received £100,000 in damages from the publishers of The News of the World and its sister paper The Sun over articles falsely reporting he had slapped his then-fiancĂ©e and now wife, Coleen. Both had always denied the reports.
  • In June 2006, England footballer Ashley Cole received damages from the publishers of The News of the World over articles incorrectly alleging the footballer had used a mobile phone as a gay sex toy. Together with its sister paper The Sun, The News of the World paid Cole £100,000 to settle the case
  • In July 2006, a libel action brought by the Scottish politician Tommy Sheridan came to court in Edinburgh. Sheridan denied allegations, made by the newspaper in November 2004 and January 2005, that he had an affair, engaged in group sex and attended a swinger's club in Manchester. Sheridan won the case and was awarded £200,000 in damages. The newspaper intends to appeal against the jury's decision,[13] and has refused to pay out the money; Sheridan and his wife Gail were charged with perjury; the court case commenced on 4 October 2010. Charges against Gail were dropped and she was acquitted [14] on 17 December 10. Tommy was subsequently convicted[15] on 23 December 10. The case was the longest perjury trial in Scottish history.
  • In January 2010 Norwich City Football Club started legal proceedings against the News of the World after they published an article, "Canaries on Brink" on 24 January 2010 claiming that the club had begun the processes of going into administration [16]
  • In February 2010, the Hollywood couple Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made plans to sue the News of the World after it published allegations about their relationship.[17]

2006 reward for information

On 13 December 2006 the newspaper announced that it was offering up a record breaking reward of £250,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the murders in Suffolk. The reward went unclaimed since the culprit, Steve Wright, was arrested on suspicion of murder on the 19th of the same month using unrelated information. He was later found guilty of murder and sentenced to life.

Phone hacking scandal

In 2006, reporters at the paper used private investigators to illegally gain access to hundreds of mobile phone voicemail accounts held by a variety of people of interest to the newspaper. In 2007 the paper's royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, pleaded guilty to illegal interception of personal communication and was jailed for four months; the paper's then editor, Andy Coulson, had resigned two weeks earlier. In 2009/2010, further revelations emerged on the extent of the phone hacking, and how it was common knowledge within the News of the World and its News International parent. According to a former reporter at the paper, "Everyone knew. The office cat knew," about the illegal activities used to scoop stories.[18] On January 17, 2011 The Guardian reported that Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator paid by the paper, testified that he had been asked by the newspaper's leadership to hack voicemail accounts on its behalf.[19]

Famous scandals reported by the News of the World

Editors

1891: Emsley Carr
1941: David Percy Davies
1946: S. Skelton
1947: Arthur Waters
1953: Reg Cudlipp
1960: Stafford Somerfield
1970: Cyril Lear
1975: Bernard Shrimsley
1980: Barry Askew
1981: Derek Jameson
1984: Nicholas Lloyd
1985: David Montgomery
1987: Wendy Henry
1988: Patsy Chapman
1993: Stuart Higgins
1994: Piers Morgan
1995: Phil Hall
2000: Rebekah Wade
2003: Andy Coulson
2007: Colin Myler

Current editors

Current journalists and writers

  • Neville Thurlbeck (mainly responsible for the Beckham/ Loos story) [20]
  • Carole Malone (columnist)
  • Jane Atkinson (Chief feature writer)
  • Robert Jobson (Royal reporter)
  • Dan Wootton (Showbiz editor)
  • Tom Latchem (TV Editor)

See also

References

  1. ^ Summary Report - News of the World[dead link]
  2. ^ The Top 100 Newspapers Worldwide. Mondo Newspapers. Retrieved 14 Jan 2011.
  3. ^ Sweney, Mark (2010-09-16). "News of the World to go behind online paywall". London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/16/news-of-the-world-paywall. Retrieved 16 September 2010. 
  4. ^ "UK | Pair jailed over royal phone taps". BBC News. 2007-01-26. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6301243.stm. Retrieved 2010-03-14. 
  5. ^ J. W. Robertson Scott, The Story of the Pall Mall Gazette (1950), 417
  6. ^ Department of the Official Report (Hansard), House of Commons, Westminster (1999-06-09). "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Jun 1999 (pt 54)". Publications.parliament.uk. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990609/debtext/90609-54.htm#90609-54_head1. Retrieved 2010-03-14. 
  7. ^ Stop Press - News of the World reporter exposes himself to public ridicule!
  8. ^ "Police condemn vigilante violence". BBC News. 4 August 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/865633.stm. Retrieved 2007-10-12. 
  9. ^ "Paediatrician attacks 'ignorant' vandals". BBC News. 30 August 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm. Retrieved 2007-10-12. 
  10. ^ "Mob mistakes man for sex abuser". BBC News. 24 July 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/849098.stm. Retrieved 2009-09-01. 
  11. ^ "Vigilante attack on innocent man". BBC News. 25 July 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm. Retrieved 2009-09-01. 
  12. ^ "Rebekah Wade: Profile". BBC News. 13 January 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1714303.stm. Retrieved 2007-10-12. 
  13. ^ "Scotland | Sheridan victory in court battle". BBC News. 2006-08-04. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5246378.stm. Retrieved 2010-03-14. 
  14. ^ "Gail Sheridan cleared of perjury charges". BBC News. 2010-12-17. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12020014. Retrieved 2011-01-07. 
  15. ^ "Tommy Sheridan found guilty of perjury". BBC News. 2010-12-23. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037. Retrieved 2011-01-07. 
  16. ^ "Norwich City sue News of the World over 'debt' story". BBC News. 2010-02-01. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8492302.stm. Retrieved 2010-03-14. 
  17. ^ "Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt sue newspaper". BBC News. 2010-02-08. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8505035.stm. Retrieved 2010-03-14. 
  18. ^ http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/former-reporter-knew-coulson
  19. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/17/phone-hacking-news-of-the-world?CMP=twt_fd
  20. ^ [1][dead link]

External links

Sunday, February 20, 2011

MURDOCH the dictator...who will stop him from telling us how to think ?

Rupert Murdoch and the future of British media

As angry MPs agree witnesses should be called to account over the phone-hacking affair, Henry Porter and Will Hutton examine the wide influence of the media empire behind the scandal

The malign influence of Rupert Murdoch on British life

News International acts as if it is above the law and has contributed to the coarsening of society's values, writes Henry Porter

When Rupert Murdoch appeared on his own Fox News Channel last year and was, astonishingly, asked about the News of the World phone-hacking scandal – "the story that was really buzzing around the country and certainly here in New York", as the anchorman put it – Murdoch cut him off with the words: "I'm not talking about that issue at all today. I'm sorry."

Seen against the background of Sun Valley, Idaho, and in short sleeves and sunglasses, Murdoch appeared more like a gangster fighting extradition proceedings than the attendee of a media conference. For some reason, the vicious agility of the elderly Hyman Roth in The Godfather, Part II came to mind. Naturally, the Fox News anchor didn't challenge the man he called Mr Chairman and the matter of the mass hacking of phones belonging to MPs, public figures and celebrities was dropped as Murdoch moved to praise his own organisation for its robust criticism of the Obama administration, delivering one swift jab at a competitor, the Financial Times, in the process.

Murdoch is a problem for British society and the News of the World phone-hacking story – given further impetus over the last 10 days by the New York Times and the Guardian – is a symptom of the chronic malignity of his power. In the last 40 years, we have grown used to News International (NI), so that it is difficult to imagine Britain without Murdoch's occupation, without, for instance, the leaders of the main parties humiliating themselves and our political system to gain his endorsement, or News International journalists and executives treating the law, national institutions and Parliament with disdain.

Murdoch has become one of the political issues of our time, as menacing in his own special way to democracy and conduct of politics as many other threats our society faces, only we do not see it, because his power is used behind the scenes to extend his commercial influence and so his grip on the flow of so much of the information in Britain. He and his equally unappealing son, James, (probable salary £1.3m) may bellyache about the BBC, but when you set the advertising spend and income of BSkyB alongside those of ITV and the BBC and add his newspapers and websites into the equation, you realise that Murdoch is by far the greatest force.

In February, I evoked the nightmare of Berlusconi's Italy when commenting on the fact that News International had concealed the truth about the extent of the phone hacking and that people such as Rebekah Brooks, formerly editor of the Sun and News of the World and now chief executive of NI, had refused to turn up to answer questions from the Commons culture, media and sport select committee.

This is wrong in one respect. Berlusconi is at least an Italian operating in his own land. As an American citizen, Murdoch appears to have scant interest in the plurality of information in Britain and therefore the health of British society.

His overriding concern is that the government remains covertly in step with his plans for expansion and that the flow of profits to News Corp remains uninterrupted. It is as though we had handed over a huge chunk of British agricultural land or given up our food distribution networks to a relentless foreign corporation.

But the amazing thing about Murdoch's power is that it is maintained even though we owe him absolutely nothing and he is, theoretically, at the mercy of laws and regulations that can be activated to control him.

His power is in a sense illusory, maintained because people choose to believe it.

He argues with some reason that Sky News Sport and Sky+, for instance, and the continued existence of the loss-making Times and Sunday Times newspapers (losses up to £87.7m in 2009) make an important contribution to entertainment and information, yet it is also probable that other companies, possibly more benign, would have grown to occupy the commercial space that he has created for NI.

Anyway, the good in his enterprises must surely be set against the detriment to British society, laid bare in the phone-hacking scandal.

These are as follows. First, he has been responsible for a distortion of politics in the last four decades. In an unguarded moment at Davos three years ago, he replied to a question about shaping the agenda on the Iraq war: "We basically supported the Bush policy." And so he did.

In the nine days before the invasion, freedom of information requests reveal that he had three conversations with Tony Blair.

No British political party has succeeded at an election in the last 30 years without Murdoch's blessing and the drumbeat of his papers can make life extremely difficult for a government when he withdraws his support, as he did from Labour last year.

This ability to intervene decisively in general elections gives him immediate access to the prime minister and power to his editors to dictate laws, such as Sarah's Law.

It was hardly a surprise when David Cameron employed the former editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, now mired in the phone-hacking scandal, to be his director of communications.

Blair's deputy director of communications, Lance Price, called Murdoch the 24th member of the cabinet. "His presence was always felt," he wrote. "No big decision could ever be made inside Number 10 without taking account of the likely reaction of three men – Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Rupert Murdoch.

 On all the really big decisions, anybody else could safely be ignored." That is almost certainly true of the new government and Andy Coulson is seen as the key facilitator of Rupert's habitual privilege.

Second, News International regards itself as above the law of the land. As well as paying out large sums to several victims of the phone hacking, who might otherwise have brought cases against NI in open court, it is suspected of subverting the police.

The Metropolitan Police's investigations by Andy Hayman into Glenn Mulcaire's operation to tap phones on behalf of the News of the World is thought by MPs such as Paul Farrelly to be inadequate.

 Mr Hayman is now employed by the Times as a columnist. Further, Rebekah Brooks admitted to a House of Commons committee, then denied it, that as editor she authorised payments to the police for stories.

Unseen political influence, paying the police for stories and the hobbling of due process are the standard procedures followed by crime families and though I do not say that Murdoch is a criminal, there is a case for placing the influence of the media magnate, his clannish associates and family on the spectrum of undesirable behaviour in a democracy.

The third part of the case against Rupert Murdoch stems from the unusual clarity of a one-dimensional being – the lack of doubt in his positions – as well as the acid drip of his customary cynicism.

British society is far from perfect: we are sometimes harsh, jeering, vulgar, indolent and lacking in compassion and it is to these traits that Murdoch's tabloid newspapers and much else in his media empire appeal.

 But look at Britain before Murdoch bought the News of the World and you see a nation that was a good deal less derisive.

 Murdoch has undoubtedly contributed to the coarsening of British society and also to an erosion of values, which now sees a society where the outrageous practices of his – and other – tabloid journalists are expected, if not quite accepted.

I often wonder what Murdoch and his family will leave behind when they pass from the scene – the memory of an extraordinarily successful business empire and of many conquests no doubt, but there will be few monuments, libraries, inventions, endowments, galleries or campaigns for justice to remember them by; merely a vague sense of depletion and of a power that existed, to a bewildering degree, for its own sake.

After a good debate in the Commons, which, incidentally, was an encouraging change from the proceedings in the last Parliament, the standards and privileges committee will investigate the hacking of MPs' phones. Together with renewed scrutiny of the police investigations this is a start.

MPs could do worse than summon Murdoch to the Commons, to answer questions about who sanctioned illegal practices by his journalists, but he'd probably reply as Hyman Roth did to Michael Corleone: "I didn't ask who gave the order because it had nothing to do with business."

It's time government stood in the way of his ambitions

A plurality review over the BSkyB bid is essential to protect the scope of our TV and newspaper coverage, writes Will Hutton

Three days into the coalition government's life, Rupert Murdoch was seen leaving Number 10 by a back door.

 Nobody knows the substance of his conversation with the prime minister.

However, it would be astonishing if during the course of the unminuted exchanges he did not foreshadow the view of Chase Carey, Sky's chief operating officer, in a telephone call with City analysts later in June, that News International's bid for the some 60% of the shares it does not own in BskyB should not warrant a "plurality review".

Rupert Murdoch wants as little opposition as possible to this tipping point for News International – its desire to have 100% ownership of BSkyB. Not to have raised this with the new prime minister would have been a dereliction of duty.

The arcane "plurality" provision in the 2003 Communications Act, inserted by Lord Puttnam despite the opposition of Tony Blair and the Labour government, permits the business secretary to refer any bid involving cross-media ownership to OfCom to ensure it will not materially reduce the plurality of voice in the British media. OfCom's conclusions are then included in the Competition Commission's assessment of whether the bid in question should go forward.

These next few months are crucial for the future of the British media in a way in which MPs, exercised by Andy Coulson, have simply not registered.

 The review is the last line of defence in preventing News International (NI) from controlling half of Britain's television revenues – and half its newspaper revenues – by the middle of the next decade.

 The company would then represent the single largest concentration of media power in any large democracy, a practice outlawed in Australia and the US, with huge implications not just for British politics and culture, but also for the structure of the media and the information industry.

Everybody from BT to the Daily Mail group, along with individual citizens, should be profoundly concerned. It is obvious that the conclusion of any worthwhile plurality review is almost foregone, one of the reasons NI is so adamantly opposed to the referral.

Sky is a brilliantly successful operation.

 Its revenues in the last financial year were £5.9bn and its profits £855m. The next biggest TV company is the BBC – its revenues, largely from the licence fee, are £3.6bn.

 However, Sky's sports programming budget alone now exceeds the entire programme budget for BBC1. Next is ITV with revenue of £1.9bn; then there is Channel 4 with £855m and Channel 5 with £250m. Sky is an awesome force, moving from an entrepreneurial start-up to a potential monopolist in a generation.

And this is the issue.

The emergence of Sky's market power would be problem enough if it just affected the television industry, but what makes it a defining moment for Britain is how the financial and industrial strength in television interacts with News International's dominance of the newspaper industry.

The Times, Sunday Times, Sun and News of the World together constitute 37% of UK newspaper circulation.

Moreover, this is an industry struggling to find a viable business model as circulations fall and advertising revenues shrink. Cross-media ownership was an electric issue even in an era of stable technology; at a time of transformative technological change, it has become toxic because NI's television strength can come to the rescue of print in a way no other newspaper group can match.

Pay TV revenues have jumped by some 40% over the last decade and will continue to grow. Sky will benefit both from the natural growth in the market and its talent for adding additional services.

 By 2015, media analysts Enders Analysis project its revenues will have grown to more than £7bn.

What of the BBC? The coalition promises a cut in the licence fee because of its alleged dominance, waste and extravagance.

It will be lucky to be spending £3bn in 2015 and if NI has its way, the total will be considerably less.

As for commercial terrestrial TV, advertising revenues are under pressure as audiences slip and advertisers look for better returns elsewhere; ITV will do well to maintain its £1.9bn revenues and Channel 4 its £855m. In short, by the time of the next election, Sky's pay TV revenues will constitute half of Britain's total television revenues – or more.

On current trends, its spending on locally made content will remain small by comparison with its revenue; the bulk of its cash earmarked for programmes is dedicated to sports and film rights.

No private sector broadcaster will be in a position to mount a challenge to its dominance. Virgin Media TV has just succumbed to a BSkyB takeover. The outlook for BT Vision is bleak.

That would be serious enough on its own. Just consider news.

There are only three TV news providers in Britain – the BBC, ITN and Sky. The outlook for ITN, dependent on contracts from ITV and Channel 4, is of never-ending budget cuts and the shrinkage of its capacity.


All its shareholders, reading the runes, want to sell. The future for TV news is between a cash-constrained BBC and an ever-richer Sky News. In the US, Fox News, owned by NI, is unconstrained by impartiality obligations and has unashamedly exploited a pro-Republican editorial stance.

 NI would love to repeat the formula in Britain. Nothing except the BBC, potential objections from OfCom and audience expectations of balance stands in its way.

What about newspapers?

 Circulation is in headlong decline; a further halving by 2020 is more than conceivable.

 The future is on the net, but readers are reluctant to pay for newspapers online.

The only paywalls that show signs of working are business to business.

 However, once NI gets 100% ownership of BSkyB, it will simply add its newspaper titles to the subscription television bundle to be received online.

NI is the fourth-largest advertiser in the UK. Its marketing heft and industrial strength in pay TV will thus support its newspapers and the rest of the industry will be slaughtered.

Conservative titles – the Mail, Express, and Telegraph – will be marginally more vulnerable than the liberal titles – the Guardian, Observer, Independent, Independent on Sunday and the Mirror, whose readership will stay more loyal to the editorial line. But the effect will be small.

There is a convergence of TV and online usage and attractively priced online newspapers available via Sky as part of carefully designed packages for individual consumers will be irresistible, although the Express may hope to repeat the approach with its putative ownership of Channel 5. However, the prospect by 2020 is of an enfeebled newspaper industry in which NI titles command more than half the circulation and revenues and a television industry in which coverage of current affairs beyond a diminished BBC will be sporadic, thin and partisan.

NI made its bid on 15 June and Richard Desmond's Northern & Shell bid for Channel 5 – which raises exactly the same issues – followed. The same argument applies and if Vince Cable refers the NI bid for a plurality review he could hardly fail to do the same for Northern & Shell.

The plurality review has only happened once before – when NI took a 17.9% stake in ITV. OfCom registered its concern, but the Competition Commission set it to one side, believing the size of the stake and NI's editorial record did not warrant the acquisition being blocked. It could hardly take the same stance over the current bids, in particular NI's.

Last week, I argued for the establishment of a media commission, modelled on the Banking Commission, to make recommendations about ownership and regulation. That should still take place. But the most urgent action is a plurality review. As matters stand, to delegate the decision to Brussels's competition authorities, which are notoriously reluctant to act, is far too dangerous. All politicians should understand the danger of the kind of media dominance NI is now developing in Britain. We will mourn our great newspapers, our choice of television and the BBC when they have gone.

 Now is the moment to defend them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/12/rupert-murdoch-british-media

Murdochs hackergate scandal. The plot widens...

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni7854025/


Writer seems a bit confused here when suggesting Murdoch owns the Daily mail...however he owns everything else so it may only be a question of time...

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Murdoch loves a paedophile...

The furore over paedophilia is the latest in a series of moral panics. Julie Waterson looks at who is responsible for child abuse and why institutions such as the family present the greatest danger to children

Sarah, Madeleine the Soham girls...Murdoch really just does not care as long as a paedophile is involved...and if there isn't , as in the McCann case...well he just makes one up...and the McCanns well the McCanns are the McCanns and just want to be celebs and very ,very rich...whatever the price.


http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr244/waterson.htm

Murdochs abuse of Madeleine McCann , assisting the McCanns 'Book of Deceit 'to become a 'Best Seller'

http://maskofanarchy.blogspot.com/2007/05/abuse-of-madeleine-mccann.html

Madeleine McCann Murdochs money spinner...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/

Assange on Murdoch/Manning and China

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/china-wikileaks-assange