Skip to content

Murdoch Should Blame Friends at Fox

July 12, 2011

Roger Ailes

Nobody in British Labour or the Lib-Democrats wants to see a British channel sprouting the deranged, right-wing nonsense they hear on Fox from the time the channel starts the day with that daffy trio struggling to digest the news and reduce it to kindergarten terms, to the hateful diatribes – literally hate-full – that fill the airwaves when the channel warms up. The British don’t want freaks and monsters of the far right shoved down the airwaves. They don’t want News to find and promote a local Glenn Beck on a channel run by a British Roger Ailes.

Rupert faced objections a year ago from within his family to the Ailes management of Fox and there have been reports he himself is unhappy. Fine, but nothing was done and a majority of the House of Commons thinks Fox stinks and don’t want it in a British version thumping out its one-sidedness and fanaticism.

Anyway the BSkyB takeover looks like collapsing and the prospect of a British version of Fox appears to be dying.

Meanwhile it’s fascinating to read the on-line versions of The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Independent as they sense their competition is now in a battle of survival, especially as the material becomes hotter – like today’s shocker that The Sun under Rebekah Brook’s editorship hacked into Gordon Brown’s family medical and financial records. Here’s The Independent:

The broadcasting regulator Ofcom declared last week that it will look into the question of whether Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp empire is a “fit and proper” owner of the broadcaster BSkyB. But now another question must surely be asked: is an organisation that appears to have covered up evidence of corruption and illegality fit and proper to run any part of the media in Britain?

Really putting the boot in.

Worse is to come: what I would think is an inevitable investigation of News under US anti-bribery law. Prosecution to follow. After being brutally assailed on Fox from sun-up each day why would a US Democrat intervene to prevent that?

  1. Neil Aegis permalink
    July 12, 2011 11:15 am

    Bob, it seems that what you are really advocating is some interference with the right of free speech, although you are only directing those efforts to those opposed to your political persuasion.

    As galling as you may find the ravings of people like Glenn Beck, limiting the freedom of speech is more frightening. Thinking people can see through hyperbole.

    Now that you have left the party political mainstream I would have hoped for a more statesmanlike analysis and perhaps some statesmanlike policy proposal which limits the rights of rat-bags to inflame emotions under the banner of free speech but protects the fundamental right itself. The British parliament may well have a say in the control of BSkyB, but that will still be a political decision to shoot the messenger, rather than a constructive policy evolved out of the recent excesses of the News Corp conglomerate.

    • Bob Carr permalink
      July 12, 2011 11:26 am

      I am describing a position, not advocating one.

      The law gives the British government the power on media pluralism.

  2. July 12, 2011 8:26 pm

    A good report on Foreign correspondent his poor old mum would be very upset.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: