For Conservative MP Philip Davies the Christmas run-up was spent distancing the government from Vince Cable’s auto-Assangement. On the BBC’s PM, in a state bordering on bewilderment, he told Eddie Mair:
“I see absolutely no basis for the government......to wage war in any way on the Murdoch empire which has Sky in it’s stable, which has been incredibly successful because it provides its viewers with what it wants. It’s got The Sun newspaper in its stable which is the most read newspaper in the country presumably because it appeals to a wide range of people in the country, you know, why on earth would anybody want to wage war on a businessman who employs lots of people, who is good for the economy and also provides its customers with what it wants?”
Why indeed? Suggestions were certainly not going to come from Eddie Mair. The BBC’s fear of Murdoch ensures that none of its journalists dare to voice what a substantial chunk of its licence-payers are thinking.
For those of us unencumbered by media careers a few things spring to mind. We might argue that Murdoch’s News Corporation has proven itself one of the most dangerous and divisive entities at play in the modern world, and that allowing it to become a larger player than the BBC would be act of national self-mutilation.
We might point out that rather than being “good for the economy” Murdoch is the consummate tax-dodger, a persistent drain on the nation’s resources. We might glance at recent history and see that rather than creating jobs his track record is one of mass redundancies and skeleton staffing.
We might point out that (despite all the dross) the BBC still reliably produces the best programmes in the world, while Fox and Sky are the global leaders in barrel-scraping. We might present twenty years of Fox scheduling and not find a single programme of any depth. We might note that Fox’s single greatest cultural contribution is a cartoon notable for its running jokes about how appalling Fox is.
We might point out that despite its popularity The Sun is a deceitful, bullying, celebrity-obsessed democracy-skewing phone-tapping socially-corrosive bundle of soft-core pornography. And we might draw particular attention to its success in dragging the rest of our media in this direction.
We might look at Fox News in the US – an utterly partisan political organisation, dedicated to pushing Murdoch’s own right-wing agenda. We might witness journalism transformed into tele-evangelism, analysis transformed into jingoism and sport elevated to the status of news. We might reasonably ask if we want these values imported into the UK.
And if we want play the populist card we might look at the fate of our own supposed national game. Once freely available to any TV licence holder – now restricted to those prepared to pay hefty subscriptions to a citizen of the US.
If we consider only the fear that Murdoch instils in the media and in politicians we have good reason for caution. Can it be right that Thatcher and Blair and Cameron had to kiss hands and do deals with an international businessman to ensure he didn’t derail their domestic election campaigns? Can it be right that it was The Sun wot won it?
Presumably these are some of the reasons Vince Cable hoped to block Murdoch’s plans. He is not alone in these fears. John Pilger referred to Murdoch as a “cultural Chernobyl”, and Dennis Potter was compelled to name his own cancer after him.
Clearly a great many of us share these sentiments, but unfortunately the decision has now been handed to someone who does not. Cable’s replacement Jeremy Hunt is soon to announce whether or not the deal will be allowed to go ahead, and there is good reason to believe he will approve it. If like John, Vince, the late Dennis and myself you take issue with this, perhaps you can write him a polite email asking him to consider your objections: huntj@parliament.uk
