The BBC is on Murdoch's side

[Swagman]

The BBC is on Murdoch's side
30 Sept 2010
In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger says that while the dangers of Rupert Murdoch's dominance are understood, the role played by the respectable media, such as the New York Times and the BBC, notably in the promotion of colonial wars, is at least as important.

Britain is said to be approaching its Berlusconi Moment. That is to say, if Rupert Murdoch wins control of Sky he will command half the television and newspaper market and threaten what is known as public service broadcasting. Although the alarm is ringing, it is unlikely that any government will stop him while his court is packed with politicians of all parties.

The problem with this and other Murdoch scares is that, while one cannot doubt their gravity, they deflect from an unrecognised and more insidious threat to honest information. For all his power, Murdoch’s media is not respectable. Take the current colonial wars. In the United States, Murdoch’s Fox Television is almost cartoon-like in its warmongering. It is the august, tombstone New York Times, “the greatest newspaper in the world”, and others such as the once-celebrated Washington Post, that have given respectability to the lies and moral contortions of the “war on terror”, now recat as “perpetual war”.
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=588

[COLGATE4]

1. And yet we willingly let this bastard purchase mass communication

here in the US.

[depakid]

2. He has a point in one sense- the Washington Post is every bit a dishonest and laughable

as a Murdoch paper.

[pscot]

3. It was the New York Times

that legitimized and propelled the Whitewater farce. And Judith Miller wasn't a Murdoch employee.