News International and BSkyB

That's very true, but as I said earlier in the thread (before the e-mail hacking came to light) BSkyB is too big to fail - there's no way any government would pull the rug from under it.

BSkyB is being judged mainly on the activities of the News Corp ownership and the e-mail hacking is an extra facet which under the circumstance would most likely be linked to it - it would have it's root from a corporate culture. News Corp will take the brunt of any sanction and divestment is the easiest way to do it

The really interesting angle is what happens if it spreads to America. As Michael Moore said this week it could well spread to Fox News. The existance of a 'Brain Room' surveillance facility at Fox News HQ has long been known/rumoured

Gotta disagree on a couple of key points here.

First: BSkyB is not too big to fail. Indeed, the potential is still out there for the 39% owner, NewsCorp, to end up disappearing off the face of the earth as a result of other investigations happening in the US, UK and Australia. That's not a long shot either, NewsCorp could be forcibly broken up in any number of ways. There had always been some doubt that anybody other than Rupert Murdoch could hold the behemoth that is NewsCorp together. The possibility of it being broken up before he steps down, is looming larger than ever.

Second, after what we've heard from James Murdoch today, and the possibility of what we might hear from Rupert Murdoch tomorrow, I wouldn't put it past David Cameron and Nick Clegg to pull the rug out from under Sky, probably being cheered on from the sidelines by Ed Milliband. There is potential for this situation to go a number of different ways and the way this story has gone, we've had things happen that nobody would have ever expected to happen. Nobody was predicting the closure of the News Of The World, the resignations of Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch, the continued fallout that we've seen ever since.

I would say right now, that no situation, no matter how improbable or unlikely you may have thought it to have been, no situation right now involving NewsCorp or Sky could be considered impossible. We've already had the impossible happen.

Love the idea that if News International is going to come crashing down they'll bring down the Tories with them. Let's face it though - none of these revelations are a surprise.

Also seen another story today of the government complaining to the BBC about their coverage of government decisions - at the moment the Tories are the biggest threat of all to BBC independence.

News Corp could split or disappear but BSkyB is a separate self contained business and a highly profitable one. So if that happens it will still continue, just with the 39% stake being sold to others. It doesn't need Murdoch or News Corp to exist.


That just won't happen, no-one would want Sky to just disappear, not the Government or Ofcom or any political party. I'm sure most of it's rivals wouldn't want to go either, many rely on it.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread it is the biggest broadcasting company in the country, with a huge turnover and employing thousands of people. No-one would want to be responsible for effectively axing that many jobs or forcing the closure of such a profitable company. The implications would be huge. For example, Sky are one of the biggest employers in Scotland.... and Cameron doesn't want to piss them off at the moment!

Sky's not going anywhere, in fact the bigger threat to it is the possibility of it losing some or all of it's Premier League rights in the next few months.... unlikely going by past form but it could happen and I wonder if the News Corp connection is a hinderence to that now?


Not in the way it happened but the end result of a 7 day news operation was the goal for News Int for a long while before hand. In terms of long term operating costs, the closure and extension of the Sun to 7 days is a better result than they thought they could get before

It would be preferable to enforce the break up of Sky by separate transmission and broadcast ensuring full and free access to the platform.

Limit the amount of channels any one company can have ownership of and enforce a minimum British made content to the channels.

The Murdochs statement that Sky has done wonders for British Broadcasting & employment is utter rubbish. Most of Murdochs staff are in call centres not programme production/transmission. Sky has taken billions out of the UK having a huge effect on programme production. It effectively destroyed ITV's regional broadcast model closing studios and costing talent and jobs, ITV being a shadow of its former self.

Murdoch is also responsible for the mess the BBC finds itself in at the moment, that and a spineless DG.

There is plenty of evidence that the quality of TV was far better under IBA regulation than the present trash multi tv channel american repeats we have now.

I don't think you can blame Murdoch for the quality of TV shows. Audiences have become so fractured, and people no longer just sit and watch a whole channel so small channels are formed to cater to these disparate audiences, and so the older broadcasters try to find programming to hit the broadest range of viewers.

With the internet, these niche audiences get ever more focused and so you get web video makers, and podcasters that cater to these minority interests, Groups like TWiT, Revision 3, and Channel Flip.

Speaking more specifically about the current situation. I think the Satellite network and delivery should be handed over to the BBC, and as part of the license fee (with a small increase) every home become satellite enabled. Then the BBC would be free to break their programming into specialised channels so the audiences can have a place to go for the type of programmes that they want, making it easier to avoid "reality tv shows" and easier to find and promote more highbrow content.

The BBC would run a free to view model, where other operators can run their own subscription services that run on the same backend, but they control their own content, with BSkyB becoming a content provider with special preference like BBC Channels, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 etc.

BSkyB (whoever it ends up being run by) deserves special preference because they built the network, similar to how BT has overall control of the telecom network.

Multichannel television came about as a result of new technologies (satellite, cable, etc.), not Rupert Murdoch. Countries in which Rupert Murdoch never operated have multichannel services similar to what exists in the UK (and they also show American repeats -- because people watch them).

Old monopolies and quasi-monopolies were only possible in era before modern technologies greatly expanded the television marketplace. Yes, Rupert Murdoch broke the established quasi-monopoly in British television, but if he hadn't, someone else would have -- perhaps a few years later, but certainly by the dawn of the digital era.

You simply could not have IBA-style regulation these days. No country does. Television is an entirely different medium now.

Times change. And while it's important to consider various options that will ensure quality television in the future, trying to roll back the clock doesn't make much sense.

I think it is a possibility (albeit very remote) that the Government may prod Ofcom to declare the Murdochs not to be fit and proper holders of a broadcasting licence, which would mean in order for Sky to continue broadcasting, News Corp would have to divest either all of their shares, or enough of them so that they no longer hold a significant influence over the management of the company.

Another possibility is to introduce a ban on foreign ownership (now that Channel 5 isn't owned by a foreign company, there would not be any major consequences).

I'm sure these thoughts or similar have popped up in the mind of at least someone in Downing Street seeking retribution against News Corp for helping make the Government's recent omnishambles even worse. If something like this did happen, BSkyB is strong enough to stand on its own.

No major consequences? What would happen to Discovery, MTV, National Geographic, UKTV, ESPN etc?

That's just nonsense. There is no way we would have made it into the 21st century with a cosy TV market with a handful of channels. Multi-channel TV would always have happened with or without Murdoch and ITV would always have had to shape up to the competition.

Rather than costing jobs, I would have thought that the number of people working in the TV industry today exceeds those before Sky came along, especially considering the decrease in roles that technology has brought about

Surely what Murdoch brought to Sky was buckets and buckets of cash - at least in the early days prior to the BSB merger and before Sky Sports emerged? If he hadn't been willing to bankroll the loss making service in the early days it may well have failed, I suspect.

Now Sky is a cash cow in itself, I'm sure it could survive without them.

I am more than willing to accept change in production & TV, Iv'e lived through many years of it. What I said was Murdochs claim to have done wonders for the British TV industry are utterly false. Sky certainly didn't bring bucket loads of cash to the UK TV business. It took bucket loads of cash from viewers and made footballers rich. It took millions of pounds out of the UK to enhance News Corps global profits whilst at the same time taking the revenue stream away from ITV and leading to the pretty appauling production structure in this country. Most Studiios closed leaving LWT & YTV and an office building in Manchester with an outside lot and a glorified shed for Coronation Street.

Iv'e been lucky to work through it all, but I have first hand experience of the wreckage of what was once a world class programme business.