New Discovery & Murdoch News Channels?

Why do you disagree?

Does anyone in Britain watch Fox News online at times, to see what they are up to. I watch a few of their clips, and it is truly appalling bias. They are so blatantly gone up Trump's backside that you can see Sean Hannity when ever Trump opens his mouth, that is far up they have gone.

It would be funny if it were not so serious. I remember the 8 years of the Obama administration, where they constantly bashed Obama and his government for everything, even to the point where one of their more sane hosts Chris Wallace actually slapped them down about it live on Fox and Friends one morning, he had just had enough. I do wonder how long Chris Wallace will remain at Fox News, if Trump is re-elected by the electoral college again, I guess in 2021 he will not be at Fox News.

I remember watching Neil Cavuto's alleged business news programme one day in the early days of the Obama administration, and Neil actually opened the show with "President Obama is at it again..." - so much for "Fair and Balanced".

I agree with this. Murdoch has always demonstrated a feeling that his views are particularly important and that he should be listened to (one way or another) by those in power in London, Washington and Canberra.

In the UK, he was quite happy with the soft power of a news channel that played by the rules because of the influence that came with his Fleet Street empire.

As things stand, he's not as feared as he once was. The country's biggest newspaper is not one that is published by him, he doesn't have a TV presence and his radio station makes a bit of noise, but it's hardly setting the world alight.

He craves influence and importance. The time isn't on his side like it was when he set up Sky News (UK). He doesn't have the option of playing the long game this time.

He's going shouty and he's going prime time, full-on attention-seeking - because that's the only place left to go in a nation with one commercial in name but not in purpose news channel, one publicly funded news channel and that has already seen rivals like ITN/ITV fail to make a dent.

At least he won't be disguising it this time.

Yes, one of the most disappointing aspects of the UK's media is that an organisation with the breadth, history, and significance of ITN, with Reuters and ITV as shareholders - doesn't have its own news or actuality channel.

I know the reason, but this doesn't mean that it isn't still a disapointment.

If Murdoch is as you say, why is there such a difference in political stance between Times Radio and TalkRadio? Which of his views does he want to be heard? This morning you had a choice between the leftish views of Jenny Kleeman and Luke Jones on Times or the right views of Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk. Before she lost her regular gig on Sky Press Preview, Kleeman was always on to represent the left.

The Times outlets are there as the quality brand to give some respectability to the organisation. The Sun and to a lesser extent talkRADIO are the populist products for the masses.

The worst example has to be when Tucker Carlson did a 25-minute rant about Black Lives Matter, with everything he said being complete nonsense.


The highlight has to be at 23:46. Because it’s so obvious that this isn’t about black lives. I also recommend the part just before that, where he shoehorns abortion into his ramblings.

Ah OK, so Murdoch bought The Times for respectability and not to make money?

The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Like all radio groups, Wireless (part of News UK) targets as many demographics as possible. Times Radio is ABC1, talkRADIO is C2DE.

Murdoch did buy The Times, knowing it would barely make money. That is a fact, that many Murdoch employees such as Andrew Neil confirmed. Murdoch saved The Times from financial collapse, and ensured it would continue, with very little editorial influence from him, and the paper continued, loss making, but it continued, as it is an historically important newspaper, probably the most historical newspaper in the United Kingdom.

I disagree over your analysis about the over 75's and the licence fee. Its not a question of financial concerns (admittedly I don't know many over 75's and am really not interested in their finances) its a case of psychology. Many over 75's are widows or have very few family around them so the license fee waiver and therefore not having to pay for tv in my opinion helps them feel less isolated.