Blair Considers Break up of BBC

[StClone]

LONDON (AFP) - Britain's government is considering a plan to break up the BBC and remove its independent status in the wake of a bitter row with the state-funded broadcaster over the Iraq (news - web sites) war, a report said.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040214/wl_uk_afp/britain_politics_media_040214223216


Well, well, well in America media Conglomeration has been the rule and defunding of PBS the trend. Both ends serving the needs of the Corporations by killing an honest public messenger (PBS) and caging the goose that lays them golden eggs (all other media outlets).

Now the BBC voice of reason is being threatened by mad dog Blair once Bush's little lap dog. What has happened in the U.S. is now happening in the U.K. and it is anything but good.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. Hitler would be proud.

Tell the truth, get shut down.

And people think that we arent headed toward fascism?

They are shutting down media that doesnt agree with them!!!!

What more will it take for people to wake the fuck up?!

[aquart]

2. That should be reason enough to vote him out.

[jean]

3. this really frightens me - BBC was/is one of the only voices left

[thermodynamic]

4. Blair's trying to pull a Thatcher, it seems...

That bitch wanted to eliminate the BBC as well, in the name of privatization though. (if that had happened, all their quality programming would have gone abunk too.)

This is pretty worrysome news, and I'm not British. There's so little in terms of fair journalism and free speech these days, especially when most of it isn't from American sources...

Blair is a twatbastard and a throwback from the dark ages. Doesn't like freedom of speech when it affects him, so he'll try to abolish it. He's a cretin, next of kin to chaos (otherwise known as George W Bush).

[Cat Atomic]

5. Brits? Does this sound like a possibility?

Does Blair still have the political capital to do such a thing? Does he need it?

I was under the impression that Blair is extremely unpopular in Britain at the moment. I'd think that such a shocking move would be impossible for an unpopular prime minister to pull off.

[legin]

8. Unfortunaltly

Ladbrokes, one of THE major bookies over here has the odds for our coming election in 2005(?) (and they are usually fairly good indicators):

2/7 Labour win most seats
7/4 Conservative
50/1 Lib Dems

[Jacobin]

6. Damn. Will the British allow this? I would think there would be riots

in the streets if Blair tries to finish off the Beeb.

[Minstrel Boy]

7. Hideous news to anyone who values public broadcasting, anywhere.

Though it sounds like it's merely at the consideration stage. Maybe a trial balloon. I hope Britons can stamp this out now.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

17. I hope Blair tries this. Asking citizens to choose Blair or the Beeb?

He's on a hiding to nothing. The BBC is the world's premier broadcaster, with an extraordinary track record and history. People in the UK are much more attached to the BBC than any Prime Minister. Thatcher wanted to do this, but backed away. If Thatcher wouldn't, Blair can't. I seriously hope he tries.

[historian]

9. dont worry

Not a chance - the BBC is part and soul of every brit alive (myself included)and there would be fires in the streets before that could happen!

[Eric J in MN]

10. Blair appointed Lord Hutton, and Lord Hutton said Blair is wonderful and

Blair appointed Lord Hutton, and Lord Hutton said Blair is wonderful and didn't exaggerate about Iraq's wmd.

If the BBC had appointed the person to do the inquiry, the results would have been different.

In the US, we have a bogus commission appointed entirely by Bush to look into the wmd reports. Some Democrats are upset that it won't release its findings until after the election, but any commission appointed entirely by Bush will be a whitewash anyway, so no hurry.

[mrfrapp]

11. Serious Possibility

This is a serious possibility people. Can I ask the non-UK readers to contact the UK Government in some way to voice any concern they may have. We have to remember that the BBC does not, despite the name, broadcast to the British only. It serves to inform and educate people the world over. I feel that protests from citizens of other countries would really make the more free-thinking MPs sit up and oppose the idea.

Here's a directory listing for MPs. Relevent people (ie. ministers/spokespeople for affairs concerning the media) are: Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, Lab.; Julie Kirkbride MP, Con.; and Don Foster MP, LibDem.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

14. Write your views to the public consultation

here:

http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/pc_index.html

[GCP]

19. Here's my e-mail

As a listener and viewer of the BBC in the USA, I am completely against any changes which would impair the independence of the BBC as one of the only purveyors of unbiassed news in the world today. (The CBC from Canada runs a close second).

In America we have seen the corporatisation of news to such an extent that we are the most ill-informed electorate of any industrialised country. The bottom line has become the most important part of news broadcasting, and we are thus fed "infotainment" instead of news.

To get real unadulterated news I have to listen to the World Service or watch the news on BBC America.

Please do nothing to shut down this service to the world. In a world which seems to be lurching downwards into ignorance and fundamentalism, the BBC is still a shining light of truth.

Yours faithfully,

Sue P

[robcon]

12. I agree with Blair.

The BBC should be privatized/broken up and people should be freed from the compulsory tax to fund it.

There is no role for a government-sponsored "official" news organ in a democratic country.

[Kellanved]

13. huh?

Why not? The public channels offer superior information, have no commercials and are not controlled by the government. Quite the contrary actually, there are safeguards to keep them neutral.

I don't see how it could possibly conflict with democracy; IMHO public channels are far more democratic than private ones could ever be :shrug: .

[Deja Q]

16. Uh, look at the USA as an exmaple of privatization...

Millions of commercials that pander and patronize the audience, treats them as fools.

Millions of tv shows aimed at the lowest common denominator, making bigger fools of us all.

All the stations owned by a small handful of companies, all of which seem to say the same exact things; sometimes word for word.

The stations can and will refuse somebody to air an ad if they don't agree with it. (can you say "MoveOn at CBS"?)

That is not freedom of speech. That's corporate FASCISM.

Ironic, how a government controlled institution seems to be better than our 'free enterprise' system... especially when said institution openly criticizes the government.

Tony Blair is a big baby who soiled his own diapers. He's now lashing out at anybody who disagrees with his lack of intelligence. That's what it is, nothing more.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

18. Then logically, if the BBC is a government news organ

Why aren't they showing Blair in a better light? Why is Blair trying to break them, then? Your post makes little sense. The BBC has made the single biggest contribution to broadcasting since John Logie-Baird invented the bloody thing. If it had not been publically funded, it would not have had the artistic freedom to do that.

[democracy eh]

15. somewhere Rupert Murdoch is smiling

saying " I love it when a plan comes together"