In the wake of the phone hacking scandal, the right's hatred of the BBC has loosened their grip on a core consevartive principle - upholding the rule of law.
Last night, in the emergency parliamentary debate on phone hacking, the prime minister drew a moral equivalence between News International and the BBC.
“We should be frank: sometimes in this country, the left overestimates the power of Murdoch, and the right overdoes the left-leanings of the BBC. But both have got a point, and never again should we let a media group get too powerful.”
Let’s put aside the questionable assumption that the the BBC has a left-wing bias. Left Foot Forward has already documented much of the right’s attitude to the hacking scandal: ‘The left is after our boy Rupert – so let’s get the Beeb.’
But beyond vindictiveness, there are two main arguments against a lack of plurality in the media market – one economic and the other legal. On the economic side, dominance of the media market by a single player could squeeze out other players, or, in the case of a state provider, crowd out private competitors.
However, as has been argued on right-wing blogs, in the age of the internet the entry costs for new players in the media market is very low, and so it is questionable whether it is possible to stop new players entering the market. The more serious accusation is legal: that if a media conglomeration grows too large, it may, through a mixing of schmoozing and bribing the police, bullying and flirting with politicians, and a revolving door between all three, evade the law.
That is the accusation laid at the door of News International.
The BBC could not do this even if it wanted to do so, as it is subject to Freedom of Information requirements of which its right-wing critics already take advantage. Unless the government intends to pass a Freedom of Information bill on private companies, there is no equivalence between the Corporation and Murdoch’s empire.
We are talking here about upholding the rule of law. According to traditional Tory philosophy that, in conjuction with national defence, are the twin priorities of government that matter before all else. Yet government backbenchers in yesterday’s emergency debate repeatedly asked if we could all move on and talk about something else. The most disappointing thing about conservatives is when they aren’t really conservative.
52 Responses to “Cameron fuels right’s hate fixation on the BBC”
Jenny Tingle
The most disappointing thing about conservatives is when they're not really conservative: http://t.co/YDjisX6 : writes @danielelton
Selohesra
StephenH – I never said it was not an important story and needed some coverage – however where the BBC have failed is is their partisan and selective reporting – little mention of the cover up by Goldsmith in 2006, highlighting the links to NI of Cameron but not Blair, Brown & Milliband, treating the assualt on Murdoch as a joke – references to ‘custard pies’ – almost slapstick, wheeling out endless Labour MPs and hanging on their every word as unquestioned gospel – balanced with significantly less time for Goverment and more hostile questioning, ignoring the earlier Newsnight cronyism with Jonny Marbles – the list goes on
Tom White
Who gives a toss whether Rupert Murdoch is ‘nice’ or not? (He clearly isn’t, but whatever…) It’s whether he should have control of large parts of the media in this country and elsewhere, and whether he should be allowed to intimidate politicians or not. If your partner is ignorant, that’s their problem.
And no, it’s not been overplayed. The relationship between police, politicians and the media being transparent is er… rather important.
Who’s going to be shocked that other newspapers were up to the same thing? Everyone suspects this anyway – although AEM should probably wait (like Louise Bagshawe) for some hard evidence before stating as fact that Piers Morgan was doing it.
As for the BBC, well I know whom I trust most for my news. And it’s not ‘nice’ Rupert Murdoch – the one with ‘nice’ Fox News.
Ed's Talking Balls
At least Fox News wears it bias on its sleeve. It’s clear for all to see and no-one in their right mind will treat its coverage as objective.
The BBC, on the other hand, is able to masquerade as independent and utilise more subtle techniques, e.g giving greater emphasis to one story than one might think warranted, interviewing certain people and not others, downplaying certain stories etc.
Selohesra has given some pretty good examples and they stretch back years. Peter Sissons wasn’t wrong and the many people in this country who see a left slant at the BBC aren’t all deluded, as you wish to believe.
If you are committed to media plurality then you can’t have your cake and eat it.
matthew fox
I see that dimwit Anon E Ratface still doesn’t understand the word ” Smear “