Reading the Graun's account of Murdoch's mind-bogglingly dumb speech just now (h/t: septicisle) I was reminded of someone else I once wrote about - everyone's favourite bonkers ethics committee chair, Paul 'can't understand why a broadcasting company employs more people than a newspaper' Dacre.
Of course, because of who he is, everyone now has to pretend that this
"Funded by a hypothecated tax, the BBC feels empowered to offer something for everyone, even in areas well served by the market. The scope of its activities and ambitions is chilling."makes any kind of sense whatsoever. In the same way that during the 90s portions of the Labour Party tried to convince themselves that 'third way' and 'stakeholder society' had content. Presumably people in the Murdoch camp/empire/bunker will be trying to avoid thinking sentences like 'doesn't that just mean that because it's a public service it thinks it should serve the whole public?'
Actually James, let's have a look at the scope of the Beeb's ambitions for a moment, shall we?*
sustaining citizenship and civil society; promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities; bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK' and helping to take a lead in the switchover to digital TV along with 'helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging technologies and services
Bloody hell, did it just get cold in here? It feels like a sharp north wind just cut through me. Brrr.
The similarity between Dacre and Murdoch's absurd rhetoric is of course exactly what you'd expect from capital, and especially powerful media capital in the run-up to an election. After all, the Beeb's got Doctor Who, and Sky One has... a Blake's 7 'reimagineering' coming up. You'll notice that he spends the other half of his speech slagging off Ofcom. Regulation and Competition's a bitch, isn't it Murdoch, you hypocritical bastard.
You know, I think my favourite gag in all this is the idea that the Murdoch family believes in free competition or any of the rest of that hackneyed capitalist rhetoric**.
Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe there really wasn't anyone else capable of taking over the UK part of the empire other than the owner's son. Weird coincidences like that happen all the time. All the time. Look at Cuba for example. Or North Korea.
*This is something else that really annoys me. It isn't exactly difficult to find out what the BBC wants to do. As a public body, its mission statement can be found with a simple Google search. I have no delusions of journalistic competence, yet this bullshit doesn't exactly require Woodward and Bernstein to get, you know? Just how thick do these scumbags think we are?
**And the delicious irony that it's only being wheeled out in an attempt to castrate a successful competitor.