´óÏó´«Ã½

No way this can be allowed. Murdoch is already too powerful and has too much say in the way the country is run. Newspapers and broadcasters should be banned from making overtly political statements or endorsements. They are there to report the news not to create it. A conglomerate of News International and Sky would dominate the media to such an extent that it would enable one company to control too much of the content of the airwaves and the presses.

As indicated in the article the revenue stream is crucial. When peoples disposable income are squeezed will they still pay for Sky and the newspapers allowing an increase in News Corporations revenues to help fund the purchase?
To quote our Rupert "monopolies are dreadful things until you own one."

It is just as well that the full Sky takeover by Rupert Murdoch's global empire has been rebuffed on price as it would result in a flagrant and obvious increase in market dominance and would have been blocked under the previous Government's management. It does however raise the very serious question: was a private deal done before the election between Rupert Murdoch and the Tory party?

The sort of deal might have been we will support you (The Tory Party) if you let us takeover Sky, Virgin Media etc. (Of course after he was forced to sell his stake in ITV.) If this happened it is a disgrace and shameful abuse of the British People. I can't help wondering however if a deal was done because of quite obvious haste Rupert Murdoch has moved to take Sky fully back into his control. I do hope I am wrong, but I have nagging doubts!

Perhaps the best thing would be to see Rupert Murdoch's empire forced to sell its stake in Sky because of his monopoly position and excessive media market dominance. If this was to happen I would be proved wrong about my suspicions and that would be very pleasing and positive for the country's democracy and recognise that Rupert Murdoch's media empire was taking and recognising its proper role in our democracy.

I cant see the regulators and the competition commission putting this deal through. This deal is all about strengthening a monopoly that is already in existence. Classic example of big conglomerates attempting to consolidate power.

Call me cynical but Murdoch will succeed in taking over Sky. I also suspect he will try to buy Channel 5.

This will be the pay back for the support his media outlets gave Cameron during the election.

One of the other promises extracted by Murdoch will be for the Government to reduce or cut back on the reach of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (e.g. sell off of ´óÏó´«Ã½ World).

I do not agree with any of this I am just making predictions based on Murdoch's past behaviour and the desire of politicians to keep him happy.

I wonder if this will mean that Murdoch will have to pay tax here for a change.

It would be an absolute disgrace if this happened . While the government is trying to stir competition in other areas like energy , airports , banking etc , are they going to allow Murdoch to create a monopoly in media ?
IF THE TORIES BELIEVE IN A FREE MARKET IT'S ABOUT TIME THEY PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS !!

3. At 09:33am on 15 Jun 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:
Perhaps the best thing would be to see Rupert Murdoch's empire forced to sell its stake in Sky because of his monopoly position and excessive media market dominance.
---------------------------------------------
Perhaps that is the real agenda. Then big privatised chunks of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ could become parts of News International.

Let him buy everything and get choked on it. His failure is inevitable.

This much media power in one person's hands??? What's not to be profoundly concerned about?

Sadly the media works on the basis that Human's in general don't know their own minds (and many do appear to be this way,) and are happy to "fill in the blanks," so's to speak.

We allow "Murdochisation" at our peril.

Murdoch already styles himself as an Emperor. Indeed, a brief pre-election audience with the media king is now as obligatory as the post-election chat with the queen.

Having enjoyed the comforts of Labour patronage during the Blair years, prior to it all turning sour. The Conservatives might deem it wiser to leave the matter to the European regulator. After all, just how much more Europhobic rhetoric can 'The Sun' spew out?

On the plus side it might slap the ´óÏó´«Ã½ back in to place alongside ITV in the domestic league. Already the ´óÏó´«Ã½ enjoys aping a commercial entity in publicly funded clothing. No doubt they would seek to capitalise, styling themselves as media opposition. Which would bolster their bid to fight off cuts and continue to expand.

We don't need a state sponsored pseudo-competitor of the lowest common denominator. We need to enable the potential for true commercial rivals, though given Murdoch dominance this would be no mean feat.

If Murdoch is all powerful why can't he repair my TV bought with the Sky offer. It's been over a month.

Cassandra #5 is right, it is now pay back time for Cameron.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ will be restricted so that its superior product does not compete with Sky's.

The various News Corp media already shamelessly cross-promote.

Especially through the Sun & News of the World publicising and promoting Sky programmes by way of odd sentences in news reports, features and editorials.

It only takes a brief trip to see how Fox News in the USA constantly takes up ultra-conservative viewpoints to visualise a future where the Murdoch message and attitudes come to dominate and shape the views of a significant group of UK voters. Significant because that readership are more likely to be people for whom politics matters just once every five years.

News Corp can withstand any reduction in disposable incomes because they can simply trim the margins in one area wherein they then promote the others even harder. It won't take more than a few percentage point rises on charges for pay per view channels to make up the difference.

The last government attempted to use OFCOM to rein Murdoch back - if the new team trim OFCOM's powers in any way this will be seen as a victory for Rupert. He desperately wants to hang onto his stake and influence in ITV and if he loses it yes, he may well look to take over another terrestrial 'free to air' channel on which he can once again cross-promote to his other interests.

What do you expect - free enterprise and free markets - get real this is modern capitalism at its core. Sinister is a euphemism for where things are headed.

I wonder how many people will be told "your pension will suffer if this merger doesn't go ahead" - as seems to be common these days.

Still, I don't know why we're even bothering with this one - I mean it's going to happen as surely it's the 'reward' for Murdoch for his media supporting Cameron in the election.

...or did you think that was the 'old school of politics' - nothing changes, nothing gets better, the few are still controlling the many.

I, for example, come here only to read the comments by the readers rather than the opinions provided by the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

So the ´óÏó´«Ã½ better get more cutting edge as it might indeed get swallowed by murdochisation of the media.

And for those who voted for the Tories/Murdoch - I thank you ... not.

How is this going to benefit the consumer?

This is all about creating a monopoly which is in nobody's interest other than the owners.

It will also be funded by cheap money expropriated from the saver at below inflation interest rates.

News reporting by the highest bidder. I just hope the newsmen and women choose their journalistic ethics over pay - although everybody has their price (especially when were are in such a dire ecconomic climate)

This is the last thing we need - we have to be tough on Londoncentricity, and the causes of Londoncentricity.

Sky is a brilliant concept, marred by the ever present right wing Murdoch family. If you have ever tried to watch more than five minutes of television in Berlusconi's Italy you can see the results of untrammelled privately run TV. Giving the Murdoch's complete control of Sky, given their negative attitude towards our own ´óÏó´«Ã½, would be in my view a big step on the slippery slope towards the disaster which is TV in the United States and Italy!

I for one didn't realise that Murdoch didn't own all of BSkyB. I think most people were under the same impression for that matter.

Despite not owning all of it, you certainly got the feeling that Murdoch's empire pulled the strings at BSkyB. In which case I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. News' takeover isn't going to make such a big difference operationally in the short term at least.

As for charging users for Sky News content, I don't see that happening at all because removing the free-to-air element of it would reduce viewership because ´óÏó´«Ã½ News 24 is free and Sky's non-subscribing viewers (i.e. Freeview viewers) would migrate over.

The impact that Murdoch's influence over the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would be in terms of ´óÏó´«Ã½ world would be negligible. It would be the equivalent of killing the golden goose. ´óÏó´«Ã½ world generates large profits and is a growing organisation. It is this profitability that keeps the TV licence lower and enables the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to keep public service broadcasting as high as possible.

It is likely that the main area of content that they (as per most media outlets have clamoured for) would push to curb would be the ´óÏó´«Ã½ website which is probably best in class globally (from a free to use perspective) and currently impossible to compete with (itv.com anyone?! ha ha). This makes it an unfair market in a sense. I love the ´óÏó´«Ã½ website but as the internet becomes more regulated you can see the unfair advantage it has - it is sort of inevitable that the amount of free content is cut back.

Better that than ´óÏó´«Ã½ show commercials on TV and radio. Just wish all of the World Cup was live on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - no car adverts to interrupt the sole moment of joy from Saturday's game vs USA.

Of course this will be allowed to go through. Mr Murdoch will be calling in a few favours for his support in the run up to the general election. If the competition commission don't come out with what Cameron and Murdoch want to hear it will probably be broken up. Once all is gone through the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will be the next target for his empire (well the bits he can buy on the cheap anyway!)

Perhaps it would be better Robert to give a run down on how this would be funded ???

Appears that Mr Cameron is in a sticking situation, he lets our regulators deal with this and potentially annoys Murdoch, or he leaves it to Europe (remember him saying many times that Europe has far too much influence over our affairs), potentially annoying the electorate. I'll bet my house he goes for the latter.

So far the record of having press barons is not good, here or abroad. And it does bring up an interesting debate for the politicians, which comes down to both the yes or no answer are loaded.

This is more damaging to the government than the economy ...... we shall see eh?

Is it time to mention a film here? 30's Black and white? On this subject?

Greed is a pretty repulsive characteristic. Murdoch may be the Billy Bunter of the media, but, like the Fat Owl of the Remove, he can only succeed if friends to help him.
He may choose to try and manipulate the way we think, but ultimately no-one owns our intelligence but ourselves.

Only we the consumers can beat Murdoch.

Do you pay for any of his services? If yes, cancel them all. You will save money and do everyone a favour.

BOIKOT!

I have never watched SKY news, though it is part of my Virgin media package.Maybe it's just my own paranoia, but I don't feel I can trust it. Perhaps that's the Murdoch affect.

Well this is a classic situation of I scratch your back(cameroon) you scratch my back(Murdockly).
The deal will go through and we will see and hear more rubish coming out of a media that thrives and makes millions on peoples ignorance

P.S. how is it possible that a non Brit can own soooo much media in the first place surely their views are really not in our interests?

A wicked thought - If Richard Branson or another large media group offered to buy the shares in BSkyB not owned by Murdoch for significantly more, that would put the cat among the pigeons.....

Rupert or his minions would be on the phone to Cameron in seconds demanding that the Competition Commission block it!

Who cares, It's not as if any of them tell the truth anyway

I wrote a paper late last year that suggested if the Tories got in, Murdoch would become even more powerful and the more powerful he became (and the longer the Tories were in), the more damage he would do to public service broadcasting in the UK. It's a little known fact that he was one of the first visitors to Cameron at number 10 - ushered up the back stairs, out of sight, I believe. Looks like it's time to pay the piper. It will be a sad day if we end up with a ´óÏó´«Ã½ that's like Fox News. I'm sure he will end up owning chunks of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ before long. No doubt, a deal was done. In fact, isn't one of Cameron's advisers an ex-Sky/Newscorp exec?

#2 - your comment about money/income being squeezed and less people maybe paying for TV etc. such as Sky. I hate to tell you this but in research for a radio programme I put together last year (I am not ´óÏó´«Ã½ by the way - I am an independent over in Ireland) it transpired that people were prepared to give up all sorts of other stuff (e.g. life insurance premiums, savings, treats, etc.) before they gave up having their pay TV and internet connections if times got tougher.

At least a our questions will be answered about just how powerful is Mr Murdoch?
If the deal passes the European competition regulator, or even the British regulator, or the Office of Fair Trading, or Ofcom, or the British government etc etc then thats that as far as the media goes. All bow down to Captain Murdoch.

Ever been to USA?

Ever seen Fox "News"? (owned by Murdoch)

Ever wondered why (not all, but enough) Americans are totally uninformed, (some) a little bit rascist and (too many) think that Sarah Palin walks on water - and has a clue?

Let Murdoch take over Sky completely and you'll quickly learn.

At least I get a choice on whether or not to subscribe to Sky (which I don't) - I wish it was the same with the ´óÏó´«Ã½

I cannot get greatly exercised about whether Rupert Murdoch buys BSkyB, one does not have to subscribe to Sky Tv or buy his newspapers. He lives in the commercial dog eat dog world, it should be his choice if he wants to pay out the other shareholders to buy their shares.

Unlike the ´óÏó´«Ã½ when we can get a criminal record if we do not buy a TV licence, the staffers get nice fat salaries and gold plated pensions (and we have no say if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ managers pay some 'stars' 18 million pound contracts using our licence fee money) Unlike the ´óÏó´«Ã½ licence fee no one gives a damn if you don't pay for a Sky subscription.

Having said that , on balance the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not too bad - especially Pestons blogs where we get a chance to let off steam!

Correct me - but aren't any versions of Sky and News International and Murdoch et al ALL the same people with corporate layers/legal/contract/tax definitions?

The usual communists are out in force here. This is just one of a number of changes that will benefit the uk in the next few years- reduced public sector pay, public sector pensions, reductions in public sector employment, cuts in spending on education and the ridiculous over-regulation of people's safety and rights.

Well done, David Cameron- we're marching into a better future.

Murdoch and David Cameron will mess with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ at their peril?

back to agreeing with WOTW again today, Cameron is not going to bite the hand that feeds him and if he hasn't realised already, there is no such thing as a free lunch in the capitalist world. Although i would wish to agree with Ed Dixon opinion that "Newspapers and broadcasters should be banned from making overtly political statements or endorsements" there is a principle of allowing free speach.
its almost as irritating to read RP having to say "given that he was PERCIEVED to have benefited greatly during the general election campaign from the enthusiastic support he received from Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper" as to have read the Sun in their support of the front runner who also seemed most lenient regarding ofcom in the first place. A so called newspaper should be the one who wot won the general election

Many people do believe News international already cross subsidise to protect thei market, e.g. proprty magazines being able to offer space in the times at very favourable rates.

This all sounds somewhat dodgy to me Robert. I think because of the dangers of insider trading in this case which have been highlighted by the FT it should be investigated by the FSA.
I know that you have a lot of faith in the FSA as you said so only yesterday but the rest of us will wonder where is it on issues like this?

The OFT should have stepped in long ago to compel a split of BSkyB between the distribution channel and the content provider.

Here, there is an opportunity for the Government to right the wrong.

Approve Murdoch's takeover, but only if he immediately sells off one of the arms of the business.

#40 "The usual communists are out in force here. This is just one of a number of changes that will benefit the uk in the next few years- reduced public sector pay, public sector pensions, reductions in public sector employment, cuts in spending on education and the ridiculous over-regulation of people's safety and rights.

Well done, David Cameron- we're marching into a better future."

I'm not a communist for being worried about an individual who owns a monopoly and has extraordinary powers to pump whatever views and ideas he believes through the television using sky news as vehicle to do so. Not only does he exert major influence through his daily tabloids which the masses read and but he also thinks for them. Ever heard of the saying 'If everybody is thinking the same thing, nobody is thinking for themselves', whatever Rupert Murdoch believes the masses will undoubtably end up thinking it also. This is the first step to majority apathy and a new era of fox news uk which can manipulate government policy for the wrong reasons. I'm extremely concerned.

One issue may be that at present Sky News appears to be relatively impartial, unlike its transatlantic partner, Fox News.

The risk is that we may get our own versions of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity over here and thus a descent of news into opinion tinged with reality should Sky become a 100% News Corp subsidiary.

Now this is something that should be resisted at all costs as this would mean that pure, objective news would run the risk of disappearing from our screens as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and Channel 4 shifted further to the left to counterbalance Sky's shift to the right.

I for one do not want to see someone like Murdoch with too big a share of the media. However, comments such as (1) from Ed Dixon I find deeply disturbing. It saddens me that anyone could think the answer to any issue of this kind was censorship. Shame on you.

Damn!....I wished I bought a load of BSkyB shares yesterday.

I certainly won't be paying for access to Timesonline btw.
The business model for an internet news provider charging (via a paywall) to prop up an ailing news print publisher is bonkers!

It's an ideal opportunity for some one to set up an on-line ONLY news provider generating all its income from ads (I think the Huff Post is along the same lines if not mistaken)

Looks like it'll be Al Jazeera News and Spiegel Online for news content in the meantime.

OH....AND DON@t FORGET TO CANCEL YOUR SKY SUBSCRIPTION...YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!
(There's plenty of freeview channels available now anyway)

...and if there's a match on SKY you want to see....just watch it down your local pub....they'll probably be showing it on a hookey Sky channel off the internet anyway!

I'm not sure how you can equate opposition to these takeovers as to being a communist? However, the media being gobbled up by one or two "barons" gives the owners a better ability to manipulate public opinion. It means that even seemingly innocuous stories between elections can then be given the required spin, to slant public opinion without the opportunity for a more balanced view. To me, this is an anathema. Not only that, it reminds me of communism and fascism.

I don’t care what anyone says – if I have a choice as to where I get trustworthy news and quality entertainment content, NewsCorp or the ´óÏó´«Ã½ – then it’s the ´óÏó´«Ã½ all day long.

I do not trust Mr Murdoch and his media empire. It has been set up to benefit the Murdoch family and their investors only.

The NewsCorp’s political reporting is already highly biased and will never report negatively when its wide commercial interests are threatened.

You can leave a comment on these pages criticising the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to high heaven – ever tried criticising The Sun on their website? I have, on several occasions and my comments never see the light of day.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ ain’t perfect, but compared to the Orwellian nightmare that NewsCorp is becoming, it’s the most trustworthy and unbiased broadcaster we’ve got.

And you’ve got to be plain stooped to pay time and again for all this NewsCorp content. What other broadcaster forces you to pay handsomely for its content and then gives you approximately 40% of that content as advertisements?

But regrettably, too many people feel that it’s essential to have 24 hour-Simpsons and football beamed into their homes.

Murdoch will get what he wants, of course, that’s the way that the rich and powerful distort our alleged democracy. Cameron will bend over backwards to accommodate him, with one eye on the next general election.

I’m very worried that two of this country’s great institutions – the NHS and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ – are at grave risk with this Con-Dem government.

45

Totally agree. Surely us resisting attempts of one man to control such a huge slice of the media makes us the exact opposite of 'communists'.

I don't know what all the big hoo haa is here...

Murdoch owned all of Sky previously, he sold some shares before and now he wants to buy them back.

Regarding the concerns about NewsCorp controlling too much, well isn't Murdoch's son running Sky anyway? Aren't other family members involved in Sky's programming suppliers? This acquisition won't make a significant material change.

@40 - If a state monopoly is communist , the same would apply for a PRIVATE monopoly . And a media monopoly is extremely dangerous , much more so than in any other sector of the economy . As to the why , I trust you can work it out for yourself .

47. At 2:21pm on 15 Jun 2010, felixtzu wrote:

"I for one do not want to see someone like Murdoch with too big a share of the media. However, comments such as (1) from Ed Dixon I find deeply disturbing. It saddens me that anyone could think the answer to any issue of this kind was censorship. Shame on you".

Felix, I am in full agreement with Ed Dixon. I dont trust Murdoch to do the right thing and never will. I have felt so strongly about this that I decided long ago never to give the man a single penny for any of his products. Newspaper readership is dying out anyway and as DebtJuggler suggests (#48) If you want to watch a match "...just watch it down your local pub..."

"The combination of Sky with his newspapers, such as the Sun and the Sunday Times, would generate annual revenues of around £8bn, compared with the £4.6bn income of the next largest player, the ´óÏó´«Ã½."
And yet Murdoch has been whining that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is too big. God forbid he should apply that logic to his own holdings.

Bluebaldee (#50) Spot on my friend!

I support the ´óÏó´«Ã½ wholeheartedly and enjoy the fact that the Beeb patently irks Murdoch so much. He just hates the fact that we get great value and he has absolutely no contol over it. Hopefully the fact that he never will must cause him some sleepless nights!

Murdoch has never had a penny from me - I'd rather torch my money than subscribe to the dross that he peddles.

40. At 1:25pm on 15 Jun 2010, potatolord wrote:

"The usual communists are out in force here. This is just one of a number of changes that will benefit the uk in the next few years- reduced public sector pay, public sector pensions, reductions in public sector employment, cuts in spending on education and the ridiculous over-regulation of people's safety and rights.

Well done, David Cameron- we're marching into a better future."



...and his first success? - creating a new QUANGO and sticking a title of "the office of budget responsibility" on it.

Yes well done Mr Cameron, you have actually increased the number of unelected bodies being funded by the taxpayer - the opposite of what you promised - and still potatolord will continue to vote for you.

....next time promise something more extraordinary - like the moon in a pie.

Doesn't worry me as I will never buy anything off Murdoch's empire - its all low quality propaganda after all.

50 Bluebaldee

I would not like to be your priest hearing your confession

`...ever tried criticising The Sun on their website? I have, on several occasions and my comments never see the light of day.'

My dear chap you are flirting with the very devil. Call the Diocesan Excorcist immediately!

But then on the other hand it might be those long words you use are causing confusion. The average Sun reader would reach for the dictionary only they can't spell it.

I have been boycotting Murdoch for years. There was only one I boycotted for longer and that was Captain Bob but that was because my Dad hated him, personally. Sadly Dad died just before Bob took up swimming in the ocean.

I do find it very odd that there are some on here alleging dark deeds with Cameron. They need to be reminded that Cameron did not win the election even though Brown lost it. Cameron is very aware of that simple fact and he wants to be Prime Minister for a long time. I would be very surprised if there were any such sordid deals from this government. I know we are used to the idea but it is a party majority in the Commons which usually causes dirty dramas in No 10. This time there ain't one.

I wonder how many anti-Murdoch posters here actually have Sky contracts?

Murdoch's press put the current government in power.
They now want payback.

The government are in a position to reduce the "free" news output of the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
Murdoch wants us to pay for news and this will now be very profitable

No democracy can function without an independent media.

Guess what may be purchased - The best democracy mone can buy?

"40. At 1:25pm on 15 Jun 2010, potatolord wrote:
The usual communists are out in force here. This is just one of a number of changes that will benefit the uk in the next few years- reduced public sector pay, public sector pensions, reductions in public sector employment, cuts in spending on education and the ridiculous over-regulation of people's safety and rights.

Well done, David Cameron- we're marching into a better future."
So the public sector is a waste of money, and no where as good at providing services as the private sector, afterall it doesn't make a profit, and with a few minor exceptions, doesn't pay a bonus based on performance. So I guess the banking sector in your view would be a much better model,with less regulation rather than more,and is the way forward. Of course we can rely on the shareholders and the board to make sure the business is not taking excessive risks. Oh sorry, I didn't realise you were asleep the last 3 years. As WOTW says "there's one born every minute".

The Burlesquconification of England, (sorry but I couldnt resist that)... so why bother with TV and newspapers anyway? I find I can do much better for entertainment and news with a good monitor and DSL. That is all except for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.... they are really SLOW and often their clips dont come down at all, unlike say for example 'DemocracyNow.org' which is a tiny little organisation and they are super fast.

Sorry to say but I think this will get past whatever regulator gets involved - there is still viable competition in both print and TV even with this takeover so I think its going to happen.

Of course, you could always boycott his 'evil empire' but that might require some sacrifices (eh?)

Of course we also have the state sponsored monopoly position of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - I define it as a monopoly because you have to pay a TV licence to fund it - if you don't you are breaking a law even though you might not even watch ´óÏó´«Ã½. Maybe we should merge it with ITV then there would be two giants?

All entertaining stuff, but to put it in Sun language - ´óÏó´«Ã½ good, Murdoch bad. Quality news - free - good, biased garbage - charged for - bad. Just vote with your cheque book, or card, or Direct Debit....

One phrase covers this situation - He who funds the political campaign calls the tune with that political party. Which in this case is totally against the consumer or public interest so much for democracy.

If I want to set up a TV station in competition with Sky, what is stopping me ? That would be Ofcom. If I want to start an independently financed radio station what is stopping me, Ofcom again.
There is a myriad of spectra available to emergent broadcasters, more so since the analog switch off.
What is the barrier to entry into the UK broadcast market ? Ofcom.

Let Rupert buy an overpriced BSB, let him pump his overpriced product all over europe, free up the licensing, give anybody and everybody the freedom to broadcast on alotted frequencies and open up this closed system to some real free market economics.

And while the battle for SKY continues, today seems to mark the end of Times Online. No more 'free news'.

The question is, will other news providers follow? Like many people, I like to look at the news on various websites. If they all charged a fee, it would work out very expensive.

While the ´óÏó´«Ã½ offers an online news service, no doubt Mr Murdoch will continue to complain that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is too big.

All the more reason for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to continue offering its news online without subscription. If anything, they should expand the service

The quality of ´óÏó´«Ã½ programmes is second to none, they have been producing quality drama. I live in Canada now and the TV stations are very poor with loads of adverts and its so terrible I have stopped watching it.
Good drama costs a lot of money to produce, BSB or Sky for that matter is about selling product with material that is very biased one way.
Can you ever imagine them producing quality tv like Morse, Frost, Hornblower etc?
I like CSI, Criminal Minds,House, now that is good drama so we have some good programmes here.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Another story about big business/media and the rich and famous. How about some more coverage of SMEs, various domestic market sectors, construction for example. You know, the individuals who will drive us out of this mess!

Are people really going to pay for news that is available free online or on TV?

It will be interesting to see how the newspapers who have recently put up a 'paywall' fare in the next year.

TooBigToFail

Anyone with 2 sentient brain cells can see this should not be allowed.
This is a drive for monopoly in anyone's book.

Split 'em all up again. Way too few print and broadcast operators. It is going to take a decade for the independent broadband sector to come up with viable competition to this monster.

Maybe Murdoch is just hedging against the failure of his pay-model for Times Online. (or that will be his claim)

Regards,

No doubt all the paranoid right wing "Beeb is biased" mob will be rooting for rupert and his particular brand of "quality" programming....wonder what Dave's promised him?

Anyone seen the new Times website.......

I have.........once!

And I used to look at it umpteen times a day.

Now I think....... stuff 'em!

Now if I was an advertiser,or an ad agency, I would be demanding a hefty reduction in the amount the Times charges for its ads, as hardly anyone will be reading them now.

What is that going to do for revenue?

Murdoch is looking like King Canute!

Absolutely agree that Mr Murdoch s encroachments on the Media of this country are most unwelcome. I find it very difficult to imagine that Mr Cameron will have the courage to stop Rupert Murdoch, that is if David Cameron has in fact any courage