Murdoch papers open fire on BBC

[Khephra]

Newspapers controlled by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch laid into the BBC this morning, seeking to place the blame for the death of government advisor David Kelly firmly at the feet of the corporation.

"BBC in crisis as Blair mood swings," splashed the Times, claiming it was the corporation, rather than a battered Labour government, that was "fighting to save its credibility."

The paper alleged the BBC may even have "sexed-up" its own coverage. "It is now the BBC that appears to have deliberately deceived viewers, listeners, its board of governors and parliament about the origins of this extraordinary battle with the government."

"You Rat," was the splash headline in the Sun, which rounded on Andrew Gilligan, claiming that he was branding Dr Kelly "a liar" in a bid to save his job.

more...........................

http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1002774,00.html

[mike_c]

1. this is disgusting....

eom, for lack of anything else to say. I'm speechless with disgust.

[dbt]

2. Is it too late to get a wager on?

Gimme a hundred Pounds on the BBC to win, please.

:evilgrin:
dbt

[GermanDJ]

3. So I guess it's time to start counter-measures against Murdoch & News Corp

Maybe it's a good idea to inform friends, colleagues, etc. which newspapers, magazines, etc. are owned by Rupert Murdoch.
People like him only have power as long as they have money.

http://www.cjr.org/owners/newscorp.asp

[realFedUp]

6. good reminder

of what Murdoch owns...much of London's papers...I bet
the BBC is one of the only voices to oppose what the Times
prints.
Thanks for the post and welcome to DU.

[Gman]

4. And of course Bush's FCC just gave this guy more lattitude

to buy anything else he pleases just to continue doing this type thing.

[9215]

5. Desperate gamble

pure political hijinks with a jingoistic twist. It also shows a closer esprit de corps' among the fascist politicos and their media enablers than I've seen before.

Murdoch's true colors are really starting to show. He is turning his "news" empire into a tabloid in a last ditch attempt to save his Fuhrer.

I hope to see his sorry ass roasting on the spit like Bush's as this house of cards comes tumbling down.

[dArKeR]

7. He plays his gamble we do our plan; try him and his network for treason!

http://darker0darker.tripod.com/

[NNN0LHI]

8. Why would a right wing hack be protecting a "supposed" liberal govt.?

Odd. Ain't it?

Don

[0007]

9. What do you mean?

*

[T_i_B]

10. Blair is VERY cosy with Murdoch

Blair set out to court Murdoch's support ever since he became Labour leader, he has the full backing of all Murdoch's papers (all of which are as right wing as ever) and he has bent over repeatedly for Murdoch on a number of issues such as digital TV.

In summary, I think that the cloven hoof of the Murdoch press is a factor here (or at least Blair toadying to Murdoch). Perhaps Blair is softening the BBC up for privatization, a long time dream of British conservatives who view the Beeb as some kind of communist plot! It would certainly tally with what a lot of Blairites are saying on DU.

Here is a good article that should explain more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1002357,00.html

We have a strange alliance of interests. The attacks on the BBC have been led by two groups - Rupert Murdoch's newspapers and New Labour spin-doctors - which have been closely intertwined in recent years. The covert Murdoch message is clear enough: Tony, we are your real, reliable supporters, not the dodgy lefties of the BBC. Even after changes to the communications bill, Murdoch's hopes of getting a terrestrial British TV channel and nudging aside ITV, remain alive. The more the government clips the wings of the corporation, the better for Murdoch. His papers are in attack mode.

[nolabels]

11. How much money did Newscorp contribute to * campaign anyway?

It would probably hard to calculate because of all the pro-bono off the books, Hype that was slid to *'s campaign to be sure.

Maybe the BBC is looking at things like this. It must be a scary thought that you are not in control of all avenues that can disseminate information

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html
http://traprockpeace.org/ios030711.html
The thirty-six lies that launched a war (11 July 2003)
(published in part in The Independent, 13 July 2003)
published in the UK at http://middleeastreference.org.uk/ios030711.html
By Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker
Weapons
1. "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt … that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons"
The Prime Minister's foreword to the dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002
After over three months of inspections, the UN weapons inspectors reported on 6 March that "No proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections." If Britain had any intelligence to indicate that Iraq had continued to produce prohibited weapons, where was it when it could have been checked out by inspectors?
2. "the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt .. that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons"
The Prime Minister's foreword to the dossier on Iraq, 24 September 2002
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council on 7 March 2003 that "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."
(snip)