James Murdoch’s democracy

I wrote this at the start of September, but saved it at as a local draft in MarsEdit, and I’ve only just come across it again. It’s not particularly topical anymore, but the points still stand.

I don’t think anyone should really take Murdoch’s views seriously, and certainly not believe what he’s saying.

His motives are so plain to see I’m surprised he managed to get through the entire thing without laughing.

Murdoch is attacking the BBC because it’s a soft target. The Tories are getting in next year, and I’d be extremely surprised if they didn’t hack away at the BBC. He’s making his views on the subject clear well in advance.

News Corp stands to make an obscene amount of money from any cuts at the BBC, and any future cuts are likely to badly affect BBC News. (Recent cuts already have.)

Who is BBC News’ main competitor?

Oh, that’s right. Sky News.

Who’s in charge of Sky News?

Oh, that’s right. News Corp.

Murdoch raised the spectre of “the expansion of state-sponsored journalism”, saying it “is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy.”

This is (one of) the point(s) where I’d just be wetting myself on the podium with laughter, if it was me giving the speech. It requires an absolutely stunning feat of mental acrobatics to think of “state-sponsored journalism” as any worse than corporate-funded journalism.

Put simply, one would expect “state-sponsored” journalists to accept and promote the view of the state. What makes corporate-funded journalists any better? Why on earth would a for-profit corporation pay people to make it, or the advertisers that sustain it, look bad?

They wouldn’t, and they don’t.

At the very end of his speech, Murdoch says: “The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.”

Independence from whom exactly? The state? Sure, I guess, but in most western societies the lines are incredibly blurred between the state and corporations. And certainly not independence from the corporations who own or fund the outlet.

Twice he mentions that “independence” and “plurality” are “so important for our democracy”.

We’ve just dealt with independence, and the response to the idea of “plurality” is similar. The corporate (‘mainstream’) media is owned and funded by corporations. The interests of these corporations are pretty similar, and so they act in similar ways, in support of what business wants. So much for “plurality”.

And finally, the big one, “democracy”. Only big in people’s imaginations, unfortunately. Our democracy is not “less-than-perfect”. It’s less-than-less-than-perfect.

It’s broken. It doesn’t work. It’s simply not democracy. The public have next to no influence, either on a local or national level. The current government was chosen by 22% of the total number of eligible voters.

And that’s it. Public opinion on major issues is often just ignored. See you again in 2010.

So I wouldn’t worry about newspapers closing, because they’ve make next to no helpful contribution to sustaining the health of our democracy, and only exist to serve their owners.

Lastly, Orwell gets misused by a lot of people, but Murdoch really takes the whole goddamn biscuit tin:

Sixty years ago George Orwell published 1984. Its message is more relevant now than ever. As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion.

I hope I’m not misrepresenting him here myself, but when Orwell talked about the state I think it’s safe to conclude he was talking about those with overwhelming power (or the opportunity to acquire it). Were he writing today, corporations would fill that role.