More like this
More smack, vicar?
The 'War on Drugs' is a dismal failure, so why won’t our politicians look at the alternative, legalising recreational drug use?
Livid with the losses that News Corp have been making, Rupert Murdoch says he will start charging for internet users to access the Times, the Sun and the News of the World, by next summer.
"Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good journalism," he said.
Whether 'The Man Who Owns the News' can pull off such an ambitious gamble and persuade other big newspapers to follow suit – remember, there were very few people who gave him a chance of breaking the hold that the print unions had over in the British press when he moved to Wapping in 1986 - may well determine the future commercial viability of the independent press in this country.
But there is one website which doesn't have to ask this sort of tough question over how it can survive: bbc.co.uk, funded with £153m a year, most of which is license fee money, is continually described as "the elephant in the room" in this debate.
For other sites, competing with the BBC is like setting up next to Tesco
It attracts 14 million unique users every week, around two thirds of them from the UK, it is the most-read free news website, and 44th most read of every site in the world. It is staffed by high-quality journalists, updated continuously and ranked highly by Google. One in every 60 global internet users goes to the BBC site every month, and its readers spend an average of almost seven minutes there every day. Readers in the UK are spared the distraction of intrusive advertisements on its pages.
So for other British, and indeed global sites (such as The First Post), who are all vying to get their stories picked up by the big search engines, competing with the BBC is like trying to set up a fruit and veg stall next to Tesco.
In vying for an audience against a state-subsidised rival, they have a similar dilemma to that faced by ITV and Channel 4. Its critics might legitimately point out that, as the BBC doesn't – and indeed isn't allowed to - produce a newspaper, why should it produce a website. Recently, in a move that many said was aimed to stave off grumbling from rival editors, the BBC have agreed to share the videos it puts up on its site with newspapers' sites. The thought, perhaps, here, is that if newspapers are taking content from the BBC, they'll be less able to call for its head.
The suggestion of the site breaching the guidelines on unfair competition is something that the Tories are more likely to investigate than Labour. Back in 2003, John Whittingdale, the Shadow Culture Secretary of the time, said that the website should be closed down. Last year, Phillip Davies, another Conservative, said: "Basically the BBC with its massive licence fee does completely distort the market and makes it virtually impossible for its competitors." But given bbc.co.uk's popularity, closing it down would not be a sensible option for any government.
Indeed, much of what the BBC does online provides a valuable service to the public. Just as with its television and radio journalism, the corporation is respected for its objectivity and accuracy. With a vast, established network of reporters around the world, it is able to cover any troublespot in the world. It provides facts and it maintains it isn't driven by a political agenda, or by the need to sensationalise stories in order to sell them. For many sports fans, the BBC website is the most comprehensive place to follow what is going on every Saturday afternoon.
There are still many parts of the BBC site which cater only for niche interests
But with over 2 million individual pages, the website is heaving with stories that it needn't have bothered posting.
After the 2004 Graf report, the website's last major review, told the BBC online to focus on its remit as a public service broadcaster, it has taken steps not to duplicate content which could just as easily be found elsewhere, and it now supplies plenty of links to other sites instead of, for instance, providing its own entertainment listings.
However, there are still many parts of the site which cater only for niche interests, or which cover areas that are dealt with more comprehensively by other commercial sites.
Do we really have to count on the BBC to reveal that "Blue Square Premier side Tamworth have completed the signing of former West Brom youngster Anthony Bruce"? Surely this would be better left to the Tamworth Herald's website, or the Blue Square Premier's site, or the Non-League Paper. Tamworth are, after all, a non-league football team which last season had an average gate of only 815.
And does the license-fee payer really need to fund the nostalgic reassessment of a song by an Australian reggae-influenced rock band called Men at Work which starts "Vegemite sandwiches, chunder and a 'head full of zombie'. What's going on in Down Under?" ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Why would anyone support that strange assumption in the title of this story? Since when did owning a newspaper become a prerequisite qualification for owning a news web service? The BBC has been in the electronic news media business since before Murdoch was born. As technologies change, old media have to adapt or die. Murdoch's newspapers are dying, so he's switching to the web, but he's having trouble making a quid out of it. Boo hoo. The British public sensibly prefer their own collectively owned and reasonably balanced multimedia news services to Murdoch's lower-grade private commercial versions. Bad luck Rupert. Try harder and get better, or get out of the business.
Neil McGowan: You're an idiot, and, judging from your total lack of understanding of the BBC, not British [or if you are British, yo're remarkably ill-informed]. Your silly rant sounds like the idiot, 'soon to be ex-MEP', Daniel Hannan on the NHS, another target of the neo-right lame brains. BBC 'plant' indeed, yeah right. And it seems Kevin McGrane is indeed a neo-con American, unless my research found the wrong Kevin. Go watch Fox and leave the thinking to adults Kev.
The BBC is funded directly by the licence payer "the people" not the state or advertisers and I believe for what we get, the best news coverage in the world, an organisation with integrity, general entertainment of good if not high quality, broad audience appeal in terms of radio broadcast.
I for one am happy to pay the licence it doesnt go to the government, but provides me with a service, for the people by the people. I am proud of and long may it remain.
None of the comments attacking the BBC could say how else matters might be organised. With Mr Rupert Murdoch and a variety of business led models waiting to step in, the alternatives are all depressing; have you ever watched Mr Glenn Beck? Do you want to see more? The world according to S. Berlusconi?
'First Post' is worthwhile because it inherits a tradition of public opinion forming in the UK in the early 20th century very largely, though now rarely acknowledged, by Reith's BBC. This can at times grate with preachiness ("Auntie BBC"), but it is much, much better than the alternatives run by US businessmen which pass muster as the western media today. All the least good aspects of current UK news practices have been imports.
John Chamberlaine (above) is more than disingenuous - in fact I suspect him of being a BBC "plant" (a ruse they use most frequently).
Every last penny the BBC gets is derived from State sources. The Govt votes the BBC the right to raise a private tax on anyone with a television in Britain - enforcable by private policing, fines and prison sentences in a set-up reminiscent of Ceausesecu's Securitate. This convenient collusion plonks 22 billion pounds in the hands of the BBC - but there's some backscratching wanted in exchange. All the Beeb has to do for this astonishing sum is... print whatever lies the Government require, and call them "BBC News Online". Support for Blair's illegal wars? Ker-ching!! Blind propping-up of the Bush Administration! Ker-Ching, BBC America! Ignoring Britain's collusion in CIA secret torture prisons? Ker-Ching!!
BBC News Online makes "Pravda" look like a model of objective and free reporting.
Kevin McGrane thinks he's made some kind of point by attacking me rather than answering comments. FYI, it's always rightwing yanks attacking the BBC along with the NHS, largely because they're ignorant and anything measured, balanced and fair smacks of communism to them and their fellow nazis in the UK. I have no agenda, I merely respect the BBC for its overall coverage and professionalism, despite not agreeing with them frequently. Got it?
Jerome Peter, I'm not left wing I'm an anarchist, and I'm far more critical of communists, stalinists and fellow travellers than you could ever be. You're touchy precisely because you are a fascist, or was the remark about your British National Party membership supposed to be ironic? Quote: 'It has ingrained its highly controversial communist agenda so thoroughly into the minds of its customers, that it is now deemed controversial (by the BBC), to want to discuss the subjects that they steer well clear of and censor the public's voice on'. Do you not see how deranged that reads? They encourage debate and allow a voice to a wide range of opinion. Didn't they allow your fellow party members to spew their racist vitriol? Jeremy Paxman does very nicely out of the BBC, we pay his wages, so why should he attack it? You can prove that quote can you? Your kind will never have any real power since you are all very little people with nothing to contribute other than your pathetic anger. The million votes you speak of were 90% protest votes to shake up real politicians, the thugs who surround Griffin haven't learned to do a cross yet.
Peter Simmons, what self righteous twaddle. We put up with the BBC because no one at Westminster has the political guts (or in the case of left wingers political inclination) to get rid of this completely unfair tax on us.
Jeremy Paxman once said that allowing the BBC to charge a licence for owning a telly was like allowing Persil to charge a fee to people who purchase a washing machine.
As far as your accusations of 'fascism' against people who criticise the BBC as being left wing, I would suggest you look in the mirror first and check your own credentials before making such ridiculous accusations, as this type of remark is often typical of left wingers unwittingly indulging in reflective identification.
It is the un-objective left wing viewers such as yourself who can't see the communist wood for the Stalinist trees at the BBC, and I'm afraid the accusation of fascism never seems far away from being used by left wingers against anyone who dares to display 'dissent' towards their dictatorial opinions. Why not just throw in Nazi as well whilst your at it?
Why the ad hominem remarks from Peter Simmons? Why the pigeonholing of those who dissent from his views as right wing yanks? His comment that he is very happy with the BBC is very telling - of course he's happy, because it serves his agenda, so he is actually confirming the point for us that the BBC is biased. Peter Simmons is a self-confessed anarchist. In his own words, he is an anarchist/environmentalist dreamer-photographer.
Why does the BBC have a website? Maybe because CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, et al, also have one? The BBC is not in competition with the British print media so the comparison is both spurious and fuelled by another 'anti-BBC' agenda. The BBC is far from perfect, but it remains one of the world's great institutions and news-gathering organisations. If the alternative to the license fee is another privately-owned conglomerate, concentrating yet more of the world's media in the hands of fewer people, then give me Auntie any day.
Of course the BBC has to cover niche markets and local stories - that's what makes it so great, the fact that it can cover international conflicts, major sporting and cultural events, as well as regional news.
Given that the license fee buys you television, national and local radio and a huge internet resource, surely it represents better value for money than other subscription-based services? You could even argue that with the advent of the iPlayer and 'listen again' facilities, it is the best value for money that it has ever been.
I agree generally with Peter Simmons.
Last night I happened to watch 'Catch me if you can', an excellent mainstream feature film all the way through WITHOUT any interruptions every 15 or 20 minutes for irritating advertisements. That is a pleasure only the BBC provides, and to me a major plus.
Of course the Beeb must also provide news & current affairs for minority interests : it is part of its mandate. Whatever one may think of its political / cultural bias it is still the most even-handed and objective of all the stations : one only has to listen to the World Service to realise that.
On another note, I used to (many years ago) subscribe to "The Listener", a BBC publication like the Radio Times, which used to publish essays & intelligent articles written by the journalists, and programme makers of programmes that had been, or were going to be, broadcast on BBC radio & television. Such a shame the Beeb had to scrap it because of falling sales... yet another indication of how little we read today unfortunately.
Apart from providing another good reason not to vote Tory, this article says very little. The fact that the BBC website caters for niche interests is in its favour, why should it just feature top stories that everyone else is covering? It's the breadth of scope which makes the BBC pre-eminent in the world, and as others have posted, it would be mad to get rid of it.
michael jose: We 'put up' with a tax because we get very good value for money from it, good to see right wing Kiwis also read the First Post, and have opinions on the BBC, but the only ones with the right to an opinion are us who pay for it, and we're very happy with it ok? Your kind just hate objectivity [which you constantly label as left wing as if that's the final insult - only to a fascist] becaue it screws up the propaganda mongers who manipulate for their own ends. The Beeb is doing a fine job, and any criticism is ONLY justified from those who pay for it. There is some, but not part of your agenda.
Paul Robinson: These tired old jibes against the BBC being left wing always emanate from the extreme right wing of America, that you too? Keep your ignorant opinions about our institution, the envy of the world, to yourself. This is part of the Murdoch led attack on the BBC since free news is anathema to him. Given a BBC monopoly or a Murdoch monopoly, I know which I prefer.
The sordid Mail/Murdoch lobby is powerful but Britain is a willful nation and we seem set to protect the one institution that polling consistently reveals we are proud of. In 2009 the idea of a not for profit broadcasting company owned and run by the people of a country seems both admirable and enviable.
I am old enough to remember when the BBC was instinctively Conservative in character; the 'one nation Conservatives' but, still, Conservative.
Despite my considerable reservations about current BBC strategy, as expressed particularly in news coverage, the prospect of having to pay Mr Mudoch or his successor for news is unattractive in the extreme. What one would actually be purchasing is not the news but comment upon it paid for by an financially aggressive and successful businessman. I see no good reason even in the light of what I think are currently the BBC's biased attitudes to pay to learn what Mr Mudoch's employee's have been paid to write about the UN, Europeans or global warming. I think I know.
If you want to see what the future without the BBC might be like, tune into one of Mr Mudoch's current outlets, Fox News for example. Love it or loath it (and I do both) the BBC is the best of several worse alternatives.
I like the First Post. I like the Times and the Times Online. But if it was a choice between keeping them afloat by killing off a public service to artificially support them through reduced competition, or keeping the BBC, then I think I'd keep the BBC, thanks.
I take 'The First Post' precisely because I believe it has more journalistic integrity than anything the PC disease ridden BBC can boast, because the BBC has been heavily censored for many years, on subjects such as immigration and the EU. Debate has been stifled and the only comparisons I can think of with the BBC's interpretation of fairness and balance would be with the former news agencies Tass and Pravda. Maybe this is the British National Party member coming out in me, but why should we be frozen out of public debate after just polling a million votes? 'I disagree with what he say's, but I would fight with my very life for his right to say it', Voltaire. Won't often find any of that democratic largesse displayed by the BBC to those whose political opinions this publicly propped up leftist corporation disagree with.
It has ingrained its highly controversial communist agenda so thoroughly into the minds of its customers, that it is now deemed controversial (by the BBC), to want to discuss the subjects that they steer well clear of and censor the public's voice on. I loathe the BBC with every fibre in my being and they have absolutely no right whatsoever to extort money for their services. If they can't support themselves with advertising revenue, then clearly any perceived mass public support for the BBC is synthetic, their 'popularity' based merely on them happening to be able to use the aforementioned extorted money to make a big site 'freely' available.
Oh I forgot, we also have BBC Canada..which advertises !
Well who exactly is all the news for? Us, the people, or Mr. Moneybags? I think someone is looking down the wrong end of his telescope.
Here in Canada we have ..guess what? ..the CBC , poor cousin of the BBC, but bloated nonetheless.Part publicly funded, and part by , heaven forbid, advertising. We also have non advertising channels too.There is no doubt that the internet is making inroads, so the newspapers had better get with it and make themselves wanted online.I read our local newspaper The Saskatoon StarPhoenix, The NewYork Times, The Independant, The Observer, The First Post (exceptional as a magazine) , etc, at my leisure at no cost . Anybody that charges is punted !. Lots of good reading and advertising that isn't intrusive. Murdoch will just cut his own throat if he tries to charge. All he has to do is make his content interesting, and his advertisers will follow. Looks like no ink , no newsprint, and no presses in the future.Its the computer age and if he doesn't get it, he will sink.
Sour grapes from the small fry. BBC is clearly superior in many respects: including International and Cultural programming. Most media are 'dumbed down' here in the USA also. Frankly BBC news is immensely influential for the UK image. My listenership goes back to Short Wave in the 50's. The evening news has become less a presence on Public Channels here in NYC. To hamper BBC TV would be a profound blunder on UK's part.
Danno in NYC
Right, so your argument is that the consumer should be worse off just because you can't make a living as a journalist? Why don't you try being better at it then?
You can't just lazily reference 'the market' and so claim that any government / collective action is wrong. By the same logic we should privatise the police and army since someone could make money from it. This is all besides the point though, these arguments have been had and won years ago, just get a different job.
I'd rather have a licence fee than put up with commercial breaks. We barely watch any of the tripe put out by ITV, and a couple of imported US shows on other channels; the rest of our viewing is BBC. It's not so much brand loyalty as a feeling that the programming put out by the BBC is generally superior to the other channels.
As far as the BBC website goes, that footy story about Tamworth won't exactly appear alongside the Premiership news. It's a local interest item and it will have appeared on one of the BBC's regional pages.
Maxwell is just sore that his dream of people paying to access his web pages is being spoiled by something he can't buy off, and there's nothing he can do about it.
sorry if I'm confused, but aren't CNN and alJazeera TV non-newspapers with web sites?
I live overseas and could not access any BBC visual content without the web site. Premium video services are though restricted to UK resident licence payers, which is fair.
"Just as with its television and radio journalism, the corporation is respected for its objectivity and accuracy...It provides facts and it maintains it isn't driven by a political agenda, or by the need to sensationalise stories in order to sell them."
You've got to be kidding! The BBC World Service (radio) was reasonably objective and accurate until 20 years or so ago because it had to be (otherwise it would have been seen around the world as propaganda during the Cold War). But that's not the case for domestic consumption, nor the BBC World TV offering. There is a huge amount of spin going on with the BBC, and much of it is propaganda. I'm afraid that for most people who tune in to BBC, they are blissfully unaware of this. Anyone who gets their 'facts' from the BBC is being led by the nose.
Yes the Licence fee might be a tax but for the amount we pay look at what we get. Radio, TV and a web site. 139.50 a year seems very good value when you consider what you have to pay a month to get SKY and then you have to pay more on top of that to watch sport etc...
I live in Australia the media here is awful, its alway the lowest common denominator stuff. And they pump the fear in to like the world is ending tomorrow. Why? Because we don't have the BBC keeping us honest, lose the beeb and thats the end of the Great in Great Britain. I'd gladly pay a licence fee all the way from here just so we can keep the BBC the same. You don't know what you've got till its gone and I bloody miss it. Eastenders with adverts? Blugghhhh....
What element of the 153m per year is "state-subsidised"? The cost of the BBC website is directly funded by the license fee payers. The only element of the BBC services to receive state funding is the BBC World service. This article is misleading and by the use of faint praise seeking to undermine the well-established reputation of the BBC website. Given the number of users per year it is probably the most cost effective BBC service.
I'd have thought it was the other way round - newspapers aren't broadcasters so why do they feel they should put everything, including pointless, badly produced videos, on a screen? It was the newspapers that first took on the BBC, so if you set up a stall next to Tesco don't whine if nobody comes to shop with you. In a phony war of their own choosing, newspapers decided to give away the only thing that made them the valuable, often unique commodity there are/were. A better example of sawing off the branch on which you're sitting would be hard to find. It is important to add that the quality of local BBC reportage is dire - and most of the stories are picked up from the local press as well. But if newspaper companies are going down the pan, the problem lies less with the BBC and more with insatiably greedy and hopelessly incompetent management during the boom years.
So what? This whole argument is sour grapes on the part of News Corp. and others - a silly season special that's only in the news because he can promote his cause in his own newspapers. More power to the BBC on this one.
I have never understood why the normally sensible British people put up with the stupid tax known as the BBC TV Licence. They had the same thing in New Zealand until several years ago, when the NZ folk decided not to pay en masse. Result? Govt. decided the will of the people was sovereign, and that was that. Do you thing that a licence is not a tax on watching TV? Well, the only good thing the EU ever did for us was to reclassify the TV licence as a tax, just for the hard of understanding who cannot see the resemblance to the licence on your car, commonly known as 'road tax'. Why should the BBC get 3.5 billion of the public money annually? Why should it preach socialism and the EU incessantly at our expense? They can sell their programmes and books and DVDs all over the world - and they do - so why should they not pay their way.
"Just as with its television and radio journalism, the corporation is respected for its objectivity and accuracy."
That's a joke, right? Objectivity and accuracy! Only if it fits with the BBC's left-wing, global warming, pro EU agenda!
Murdoch should be told to but out of BBC business, whilst I don't agree with the compulsory licence fee system of funding the BBC I think the BBC website is far superior to to anything Murdoch provides.
The licence fee should be abolished and the bbc should rely on advertising as the rest or charge for its programmes. The bbc is bloated and pays far too much for paltry performers in entertainment, news and current affairs. Competitiion is vital not propping up decrepit institutions.
The article on the BBC website about 'Men at Work' was actually very interesting.
This, unfortunately, is just going to be one of hundreds of articles we read on this subject as Murdoch and others try to eliminate competition for their new subscription websites.