A very British “Ooh no, can’t”

It’s not difficult, unless you make it difficult.  A company that owns four national newspapers,  massive media interests and has huge sway over successive British governments, is about to be given the green light to take over a vast and growing chunk of our national broadcasting.  In anybody’s book, this is dangerous and anti-democratic.

Meanwhile, increasingly shocking revelations are coming to light about the company’s role in hacking into phones, emails, medical records,  bank accounts, etc of celebrities and former government ministers.  It’s hair-raising stuff and what are we doing about this company’s ascendancy?  Er, we’re helping.

In today’s Independent we’re told that the Department of Culture Media and Sports can’t re-open the BSkyB takeover investigation to include whether News International is a proper and fit company, even if it wants to.

“If that was going to happen it would have had to be done at the start of the process.  We can’t suddenly re-open it now …. it would be thrown out by the courts.”

And this stand is unhelpfully endorsed by who else but shadow culture secretary, Ivan Lewis:

“The serious admissions of culpability by News International aren’t relevant to the … plurality issue.”

Technically and legally, who are we to argue?  But common sense must prevail and, as Jeremy Hunt is a write-off, a legal way can surely be found to intervene and prevent the takeover.  This cannot be beyond the ingenuity of all our top-drawer lawyers, brainy civil servants and wily politicians.

But does the will exist in Westminster beyond just a few individuals?  Even Peter Mandelson, who has been smoked out to comment now that he too is a named hacking victim, is careful to say that “it isn’t acceptable to keep pointing the finger at one newspaper”.   Indeed, other papers clearly participated in the “dark arts”, but this deflection is a dangerous ploy which plays neatly into the hands of News International.  All must be investigated and brought to justice but the spotlight must remain on News International,  not only for the extent of the hacking, but for the years of concealment and for its unprecedented level of influence.

I may live to regret this statement, but I’m beginning to have more time for Rupert Murdoch himself than the assorted ditherers, pen-pushers, excuseniks, toadies and wimps who have let the rest of us down.

Even beyond Westminster, the Guardian displayed an uncharacteristically faint heart today.  In its admirable editorial queestioning the fitness of News Corp to become the most dominant media company in the UK and calling for a public inquiry into the hacking, it concludes:

“On narrow grounds he [Hunt] may be tempted to wave through the BSkyB takeover.  But how seedy the coalition government – including the Lib Dems who were so vocal on this subject before the election – would look if that were to happen without also ordering a public inquiry to examine all the evidence that the police have been sitting on ….”

I had to read this twice to check I hadn’t got it wrong.  Is The Guardian really suggesting that Hunt gives the nod to the takeover and “also” orders an inquiry?  Why not “instead”?

Thank goodness for the indefatigable, intrepid and the pretty phenomental Tom Watson.  If he and a few others had held the “Ooh no, can’t” attitude, we’d all still be in the dark about the criminality and corruption at the heart of our society.

Murdoch’s great, green, golden, global opportunity

Yesterday’s Australian press reported that, Dick Smith, the country’s former electronics magnate, has called on Rupert Murdoch to return to the land of his birth and guide it “through the confusing age of climate change”. Smith’s point may have been tongue-in-cheek, but the thought occurs: why limit the request to Australia, when Murdoch owns media outlets the world over?

Just as all his titles supported the war in Iraq, they could now join forces with his numerous broadcasting outlets and, this time, be a force for good. Under the guidance of the leading world environmental authorities, News Corporation has the potential to develop and implement a comprehensive programme to inform, educate and campaign on this issue so essential to the future of mankind.

Is this an absurd notion? We think not. Last week at the e-G8 digital forum in Paris, Murdoch spoke again on the need for massive investment in education and “unlocking the potential” of the world’s children. True, he has bought into education technology in the US and sees a huge market here but, as has been pointed out even by his critics, there may be more to it. When rich and powerful figures reach the end of their careers, it’s not unusual for them to focus on an altruistic legacy. And Murdoch, being a curious mixture of the prude and the power-hungry smut merchant, does have it in him.

Of course, profit is at the heart of his empire’s existence, and an article on sustainable energy is not as juicy as revelations of a footballer’s sex life. It won’t sell newspapers, not on its own. But Murdoch and his staff are inventive enough to find ways and means.

Yes, we desperately want to see his empire broken up and its influence diminished, but it ain’t going to happen overnight. And, yes, we abhor the prospect of Murdoch elevating himself and his heirs to the status of saviours of the planet. But, for the immediate future, a concerted, expert-led, News Corporation campaign on climate change – aimed at governments, industry and consumers – could be a force for immeasurable good.

Regulation is key

In a rather good article on press and privacy in this week’s Economist, I was reminded of (Daily Mail editor) Paul Dacre’s much commented upon 2008 speech on press freedom, when he declared:

“If mass-circulation newspapers, which, of course, also devote considerable space to reporting and analysis of public affairs, don’t have the freedom to write about scandal as well as dry public policy, I doubt whether they will retain their mass circulations, with the obvious worrying implications for the democratic process.”

The notion that purveying tell-tale stories about the sex lives of celebrities is a plank of the democratic process is an example of the dangerous levels of self-delusion in tabloid journalism.   It is the same mock, moral posturing that is used to justify its tawdry, venal, self-serving, dirt-digging on individuals whose behaviour has no bearing whatever on the public interest.   Dacre believes it is the duty of the media to take an ethical stand.   Excuse me?  Did God decree that our moral judges are tabloid editors, hacks and hackers.   Personally, I would rather stand before a panel of real hyenas.

And it is these newspapers who, with others, sit in judgement of themselves on the UKPCC.  Whatever its ethos, intent and integrity of its officers, whatever its clout and its achievements, the UKPCC surely cannot continue in its present form.  Self-regulation has completely lost its credibility as the UKPCC has presided over a steep decline in standards in parts of the industry.  Significantly, it has completely failed to deal with the phone-hacking.   Meanwhile, Richard Desmond has simply unjoined the club and taken his papers out of its reach altogether.

Statutory regulation has worrying implications for freedom of the press but we seem able to survive with Ofcom, the statutory regulator on broadcasting.  With the proper safeguards and constitution, full accountablility, impartiality and transparency, a statutory press regulator could be a body that would genuinely place public interest first, while still supporting a free press.   It could appoint a learned committee to adjudicate on privacy issues, and it could be more robust about when, how and where papers print apologies.   There would also be no question of opting out, like Mr Desmond.

In the past few weeks, the UKPCC has been actively promoting its work, powers and accomplishments.  There is no reason why some of its officers and set-up should not form part of a new statutory body.   Hopefully, the topic will be high on the agenda of  the new cross-party committee of MPs and peers charged with examining privacy laws.

Finally, we say to Mr Dacre:    if you are genuinely concerned about a diverse and democratic press, join our campaign to break up the media empires, including that of  your own employers,  DMGT.

Subscribe to Sky or say Goodbye

The future status of Sky News remains at the hub of discussions about  News Corporation’s proposed takeover of BSkyB.  Indeed its complications appear to be the cause of a delay in the Secretary of State’s expected go-ahead.  But, as we have stated here before, the ownership of Sky News is only part of the problem.   (See “Full response to Hunt consultation on BSkyB”, 19 March 2011.)  And no-one should be deceived into thinking that Jeremy Hunt’s envisaged new Communications Act will address the very serious concerns about media plurality, already damaging  democracy.

But let us consider the matter from the viewer’s perspective.  Yesterday, we heard that the popular Glee series has been bought by Sky.  It was reported that Sky offered Glee‘s distributors, Twentieth Century Fox Distribution, more than double that previously paid by Channel 4 for airing on its digital free-to-view channel, E4.   A similar fate recently befell Mad Men, when the BBC was massively outbid by Sky.  With so much sport appearing exclusively on Sky, and News Corporation’s aspirations to buy Formula One, the outlook is bleak for the millions of viewers who do not subscribe to Sky, for whatever reason.  The choice is to either pay up or do without.    And the choice is about to get a whole lot worse if News Corp take over the whole of BSkyB.

Coincidentally, there was a more optimistic story in yesterday’s Guardian.  It said that the future of public service broadcasting “is brighter” than we think.  “With the finances of commercial broadcasters  Channel 4 and ITV looking more healthy, they are investing more in public service content.”  Great to hear, but will those finances continue to be strong in the face of increasing competition from Sky, already benefitting from a cash-strapped BBC?  More worryingly, if Sky is completely owned by News Corporation, its spending power will be indomitable.    Mr Hunt may be relaxed about it but it is we, the viewer, who will be paying. 

With increasing numbers of subscribers, magnitude and dominance,  BSkyB may as well call itself the new BBC – but with advertising and without the constitution,  integrity and public service ethic.  And BSkyB BBC will cost us far more than a licence fee.

Not Really a Media Quiz

 

Questions

1. Of the billions of planets in the universe, which one does Melanie Phillips inhabit?

2. What is the point of the Daily Express?

3. Why is the BBC deploying 850 people to cover the royal wedding when it only takes one drunk uncle to hold a camera at other peoples’ weddings?

4. When a sleazy celebrity kiss-and-tell story appears in a red-top, who emerges smelling of roses?

(a) the celebrity who cheated?

(b) the jilted lover on a get-rich-quick mission?

(c) the tabloid that splashes the story on its front page?

(d) the scandal thirsty British public?

(e) Max Clifford?

(f) the lawyers acting for most of the above?

5. Would it be (a) wonderful, (b) brilliant or (c) fantastic if a gagging order were to be served on Richard Littlejohn? Or would he (d) be missed in a masochistic sort of way?

6. Why is everyone getting steamed up about democracy and the AV referendum, when Prime Ministers won’t open their mouths without the implicit approval of Rupert Murdoch?

7. How creepy do you find the Barclay brothers?

8. According to Rebekah Brooks, it turns out that the News of the World didn’t pay police for information, but other papers did. Is the following statement true or false?

The News of the World has immeasurably higher ethical standards than the rest of Fleet Street.

9. When James Murdoch authorised a payment of £700,000 to Gordon Taylor, did he think the money was for:

(a) Gordon Taylor’s birthday?

(b) a season ticket for Blackburn Rovers?

10. Over Sunday morning croissants, do Guardian readers sometimes wonder why The Observer lacks the oomph of its weekday sister?

11. *Delete where inappropriate from the following sentence:

By not opposing the BSkyB takeover, Ed Miliband is letting down *democracy/himself/the Labour party/his Dad/Haverstock Comprehensive/Great Britain/Vince Cable/John Prescott/Chris Bryant/Old Uncle Tom Watson and all/Everyone else.

12. Sienna Miller’s photograph appears beside nearly every press story on phone-hacking. Is this because:

(a) she was the only victim?

(b) she was the only victim to have ever been photographed?

(c) the hacking of her voicemails is of greater national concern than, say, those of the Home Secretary or Deputy Prime Minister?

13. When Jeremy Hunt said News Corporation’s takeover of BSkyB would boost the diversity of British media, was he:

(a) pissed off with the BBC?

(b) taking the piss?

(c) pissed out of his head?

14. Is the fact that all 175 newspapers round the world owned by Rupert Murdoch in 2003, had the same pro-war line on Iraq:

(a) a coincidence?

(b) not a coincidence?

15. In the event of reform on press regulation, who would be most suited to take on the role of regulator-in-chief?

(a) Richard Desmond?

(b) Hugh Grant?

(c) Baroness Warsi?

(c) Colonel Gaddafi?

The Rebekah Memo – a MicklyLeaks exclusive

 

NEWS INTERNATIONAL

INTERNAL MEMO

From:  Rebekah Brooks, CEO       

To:   All staff

Strictly confidential

There have recently been some unwarranted attacks upon the integrity of News International, including the arrest of some of your colleagues.  In case you should find yourselves in a similar position, the facts are as follows:

1.  We had no idea that hacking into a person’s voicemail was illegal.  According to advice from friends at Scotland Yard (during a rather pleasant lunch at a Gordon Ramsay restaurant) there was only illegality if: “the person whose voicemail was hacked into was completely deaf and therefore could never have heard his or her own messages in the first place.” 

2.  Even though we believed it to be legal, and knew it was going on, we never realised it was going on.

3.  I never knew anything about anything.

4.  When I told MPs in 2003 that we had paid police for information, the word “we” obviously meant “people on other newspapers, not me or us in any way.”  They weren’t that bothered at the time when, in the line of duty, I was, and still am, in possession of their dirty secrets.  But they keep going on about it now because they hate decent, honest people like me for showing them up for all their moats and bathplugs and other items charged to the British taxpayer.

5.  When we talked about “one rogue reporter”, this was a simple misunderstanding of the words “one”, “rogue” and “reporter”.  (No, we don’t all have Oxbridge degrees, I’m afraid.)  And, the reason we failed to find anything suspicious in our initial investigations, was because we forgot to look. (There is no crime in forgetting.) 

6.  When James agreed to give Gordon Taylor £700,000, he didn’t ask anything about why.  He just signed the cheque, because that’s the sort of trusting, generous guy James is. 

7.  If some of our over-enthusiastic staff arranged a bit of phone-hacking, so what?  All the papers have been doing it for billions of years.  Yes, they have.  All of them.  Yes indeed. 

8.  The reason we were picked on is because the other news groups, who are really crap, ganged up against us.  They can’t stand our success and are scared of our unstoppable growth.  And with good reason.  Once Rupert gets BSkyB, it’ll be curtains for many of them.  He’ll bundle subscriptions for BSkyB with our papers, and we’ll have the whole market stitched up.   (That’s what I mean by “plurality” – lots of plurals for us!)  This is fair business competition.  My local MP and riding partner, a man called Dave, assures me of this.

9.  Another reason we’ve been singled  out is because we have been bold and told the truth in the News of the World about the shit behaviour of a pile of celebrity losers.  They want revenge, publicity and our money, these dregs of humanity with sharp lawyers.  We are the victims of a witch-hunt, being punished for acting in the public interest by exposing private agonies and sordid personal problems.   The innocent families of these people will thank us one day for ruining their lives forever.

10. Who the f**k does Hugh Grant think he is? 

Finally, on a personal note, while I thoroughly enjoy my job in Wapping, I am considering relocating to Rio de Janeiro, possibly next week.  Rupert’s  offered to buy a few Brazilian dailies for me to run and says it doesn’t matter if I can’t speak a word of the lingo.  This will be a great career move and will have nothing to do with the fact that Britain has no extradition treaty with Brazil and I know you will wish me well.

Adios, or whatever they say in Brazil.

Rebekah Brooks, CEO

PS  By the way, we had to tidy  James Weatherup’s desk before the police arrived today.  It was a right mess. Stale cheese and onion crisps, pencil sharpenings,  bits of paper with things scribbled on them – all rather smelly, I’m afraid.  Please ensure your own desks are completely emptied out and your computers wiped clean, or destroyed forever.  We do have standards to adhere to in Wapping.

Is Labour about to let Murdoch have his prize?

In his letter about the BSkyB takeover to Jeremy Hunt last week, shadow culture secretary, Ivan Lewis, rightly asked several tricky questions about the proposed independence of Sky News.  He also asked to be involved in Hunt’s new Communications Bill,  for it to be brought forward two years to 2013 and for it to include provisions that would in future remove politicians from plurality and cross media decisions.   

All good stuff but, if this is the extent of Lewis’s opposition to the takeover, we find it pretty inadequate.  Here’s why:

1. While the independence of Sky News is a crucial issue, it is but one element of the problem.  News Corporation owning all of BSkyB, along with its vast share of British media, with or without Sky News, has tremendous implications for plurality, as we have explained many times on this blog. 

2.  Without buying one extra share of BSkyB,  News Corporation already owns far too much media than is healthy in any democracy.  Its political power and influence over successive governments is indisputable.  Labour’s efforts should be directed towards breaking up the current concentration of ownership in Britiain now.  (Maybe wishful thinking, but at least make a few noises on these lines!)

3.  Hunt’s intended new Communications Bill of 2015, or even 2013, will have a limited impact on plurality if News Corporation already has ownership of BSkyB.  And if it’s planned to be that important, why doesn’t Lewis ask Hunt to defer a decision on any bid of this nature until after the bill is in place? 

4.  It is ludicrous for Lewis to persist in omitting the phone-hacking scandal from his argument.  We know this is current front bench policy, but it is no longer credible.  How can any responsible politician believe that a corporation that has behaved so disreputably and is currently under criminal investigation is fit to buy a comic, let alone much of our broadcasting?  On this issue, it would seem that Ivan Lewis, Tom Baldwin and Ed Miliband are not only out of step with Labour’s Tom Watson, Chris Bryant and John Prescott  – but also out of step with the public.

Tomorrow night, Jeremy Hunt is due to appear on BBC Question Time, alongside Caroline Flint from Labour’s front bench.  If any discussion arises about the phone-hacking or BSkyB or Rupert Murdoch, Caroline must be allowed to state that no decision should be made about the takeover while the investigation is in progress. 

We are less than three weeks from Hunt’s expected rubber stamp for the deal.  If Labour don’t use every opportunity to fight this takeover, they will be letting down the public and themselves. 

 

Here is the letter from Ivan Lewis to Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

30^th March 2011

Dear Jeremy

Newscorp acquisition of BSkyB and new Communications Act

Throughout the quasi-judicial process I have sought to ensure maximum transparency consistent with the public interest. In this context, I have a number of questions with regard to the remedy proposed by Newscorp and accepted by you subject to consultation. All of these questions relate to your proposition that the independence of Sky News is protected by the proposed remedy. It is essential there is clarity on a number of issues before people can make proper judgements about your decision.

Under the proposed remedy:

1. Who will appoint the Board of Newco?
2. What proportion of the Board will be independent non-executive Directors?
3. Who will appoint the independent Chair of the Board?
4. Do you accept the following in relation to Newco?
   1. It will be dependent on a contract with News Corporation for 85% of its revenues and 25% of its costs.
   2. It will be dependent on News Corporation to distribute its TV news output on the BSkyB network.
   3. It will only be viable long-term if Newscorp are willing to renew the Carriage Agreement.
5. How is the proposed remedy consistent with the OFT’s guidance that it is rare to accept even interim purchase/supply arrangements between merging partners and the divestment business given the requirements for a clear cut remedy in lieu of a Competition Commission reference?
6. Company Directors have a duty to act in the interests of their company and shareholders. Therefore is it not the case that as Newscorp are the main customer and distributor for Sky News the Directors of Newco will have a duty to respond positively to the interests of Newscorp?

 Finally you have confirmed that it is the Government’s intention to introduce a new Communications Bill. Will you accept my offer to work with you to ensure the Act can be passed by 2013 rather than 2015? Creating a new regulatory environment is a jobs and growth issue and therefore we should move quickly. In light of the very real issues of impartiality that have arisen in relation to this case, will you consider including provisions in the Bill which would in future remove politicians from having any quasi-judicial role in relation to specific plurality and cross media ownership decisions? 

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

Ivan Lewis MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

 

 

The Observer and the filter tip

We don’t often comment on newspaper content on this blog and we rarely criticise the sainted Guardian group, but …………. The front cover of today’s Observer magazine has an exquisite profile of an impossibly glamorous, ivory-skinned beauty, with a filtr-tip elegantly hanging from her blood red lips. The caption is “The Last Gasp – Why fashion can’t kick the habit” and the cigarette is deliberately drooping, so as to signify its dodgy status.

But, droop or no droop, nothing can eradicate the powerful impact of this image that links glamour to smoking. And there it is, on the breakfast table this Mothering Sunday, for Observer daughters to be drawn to like magnets. Should they turn to the article inside, they’ll find a rather pointless essay on why “fashion is falling back in love with smoking.” True, author Euan Ferguson goes to pains to repeat that smoking is both dangerous and uncool, but the impression that lingers is more likely to be the full page picture of Kate Moss and her cigarette on their recent notorious jaunt down the Paris catwalk.

This matters because, as we all know, the reason why people start to smoke, particularly young females, is through its association with glamour and sophistication. The health dangers are not disputed, but are easily swept aside by optimistic minds. Any possible harm is likely to be a long way off in the future, they tell themselves. They’ll quit well before that. Besides, there’s bound to be a cure for lung cancer in a few years. What matters now is to look cool and glamorous like that woman on the cover of the Observer magazine and Kate Moss being beautiful and rebellious.

The Observer must know this, which makes its actions both cavalier and disingenuous. No one is suggesting they’re deliberately promoting smoking but, by not caring about the consequences of their feature, this is precisely what they are doing. Indeed, if one had a cynical mind, one could be forgiven for wondering if the article itself was a smokescreen for the photos.

PS I should add out that I’m not part of the anti-smoking police, having struggled with the habit myself. Just wish I’d never started when I was that impressionable teenager and hate the thought of others taking the same deluded route.

EXCLUSIVE: Miliband finally tells Murdoch where to go

Text of letter from The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, to Mr Rupert Murdoch, Chairman, News Corporation

1st April 2011

Dear Mr Murdoch

I wish to inform you that Labour Party policy will no longer be tailored to  your requirements.  From now on there will be no licking of boots of your various offspring and employees, particularly those of Ms R Brooks.  (Incidentally, have you plans for her replacement?  There is speculation that Ms Brooks, good friend of the Metropolitian Police and Mr D Cameron, may at some point in the future be obliged to move from her current luxury residence to more humble “lodgings” in  the Holloway area.)

My predecessors, Messrs Blair and Brown, believed they were at your mercy and that it was necessary for them to peform like seals for you.   Nearly all their decisions, from going  to war in Iraq to introducing the 10p tax band, were taken with your approval in mind.  In return for their fear, favours and obedience, you rewarded them with support in your various organs. 

When you perceived we were likely to lose the last election, you dumped Mr Brown and  took up with Mr Cameron, whose government is about to allow you to own more than half our mass media while, simultaneously, shrinking your rival, the British Broadcasting Corporation.  Your profits and power will raise to unprecedented levels.  In return, you intend to keep him in offce for as long as it suits you both.  We shall see about that!

You see, we in the Labour Party are no longer afraid of you, Mr Murdoch, who earns millions of our pounds each year without even paying our taxes. The people of this country have had enough of your dominance and coercion, your undemocratic political power and your  seedy blackmailing of politicians.  The criminal activity in your News International is being exposed on an almost daily basis and you will be dragged through the courts.  We don’t want you any longer and we don’t need you any longer. 

So do your worst and rubbish our party in your tawdry rags and let the public decide what they think of your lies and prejudices.  From now on, the Labour Party will choose policies that benefit the mass of people of the country, policies for justice and equality.  

Yours sincerely

Ed Miliband

PS You are not invited to my wedding.

This letter was secretly obtained for us though MickyLeaks.

Jeremy, your impartiality is not our impartiality!

Two truisms have come into the fore today which are interesting to look at in juxtaposition ….. 

The first is Jeremy Hunt’s statement on the BBC Radio 4 Media Show that many MPs are not happy with the impartiality of the BBC.  No surprises there.  For decades the right have accused the BBC of being too left wing and Mr Hunt doubtless has his Tory colleagues in mind.  And, yes, the left has also criticized the corporation for bias, in droves last weekend for excessive coverage of the violence at the cuts protest. 

What is impartiality?  Is your impartiality my impartiality?  Where is the middle ground from which to be impartial, even within the mores of contemporary society?  The question becomes almost too philosophical for its own good and perhaps there is no answer to it.  But the ability to disseminate news and information in a responsible, truthful fashion is no easy accomplishment and, in the humble opinion of this blogger, the BBC, considering its enormous size and scope, is hugely responsible.

At DemocracyFail we’ve become even more aware of this through our own teeny-weeny experiences of blogging and, more frequently, tweeting.  Given that we’re a small, partisan campaign with no claim to neutrality, we still find ourselves faced with dozens of judgements each time we “speak”.  We have to consider authenticity, selectivity, campaign significance, political slant, social bias, balance, emphasis, timing, vocabulary, grammar, tone, references, links, etc, etc.  (Yes, “editorial decisions” are made for every 140 character tweet – although their quality will vary according to the time of day, competing pressures and, technical considerations!)  Multiply these processes a squillion, squillion ,squillion times, and one begins to have new found respect for professional news organizations and, most particularly, for the BBC with its worldwide tentacles and its unsurpassed reputation as a trusted and reliable source.

The other truism reported today is a further claim about the growing influence of Rupert Murdoch over the present government.  It comes from former Downing Street adviser, Lance Price, in an Independent article preceding tomorrow’s publication of his updated book, “Where Power Lies – Prime Ministers v The Media”.  In the article Price also describes how Gordon Brown’s fear of Murdoch led him to the 10p tax band catastrophe.  Such behaviour followed the noble tradition, previously exemplified by Price in a sentence.: 

“Murdoch was one of only three men – the others were Gordon Brown and John Prescott – whose views Blair took into account.”

This degree of undemocratic power is very shocking and it’s more shocking still that we’re not really surprised it goes on.  In the same way, we become less and less surprised at the stream of phone-hacking allegations.  As they get seedier on the seediness graph, our shockability levels decline and, if we’re not careful, our complacency levels with them.  This is a dangerous place to be and requires extra vigilance. 

 

Returning to Jeremy Hunt, if he is genuinely looking for impartiality and undue influence, he should remove his sights from the BBC and focus them firmly on News Corporation.  Fat chance, specially if we’re soothed by his reassurances and sympathetic noises on media plurality.  By weakening the BBC while allowing Murdoch to take full control of BSkyB, he either has no understanding of the true meaning of plurality- or thinks we don’t! 

Mr Hunt, you are very charming and persuasive and you are bending over backwards to demonstrate your” impartiality” but, if it has no relation to democracy, your “impartiality” is complete and utter nonsense.

The Media Show, BBC Radio 4, Jeremy Hunt’s plans for the media http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/zsjyq/

Lance Price in The Independent http://ind.pn/fCjbn2