UK politics general discussion

[Matt.GC]

It was part of News International for decades and a very obvious (if much subtler) mouthpiece in line with his print media, that may have changed to an extent but it certainly has not always been impartial. It wasn't striving to be impartial either, more it put measures in place to show an acceptable level of impartiality to regulators when the intent of the output was not in question if you actually watched it. Their big name presenters, who are still there, have an overt consistency of political alignment.

Sun readers would also tell you their shitrag of choice was impartial, because that same shitrag had told them it was!

It may well be what that old shiveled scrotum of a human considers his greatest achievement, but considering what he was trying to achieve that is no good thing.

I completely agree with your views on Murdoch, and I have no doubt that had been allowed to, it would have turned into Fox News UK in no time. But Sky Television was initially set-up by Murdoch to offer pay TV services to the UK market. His News International print titles were bought to manipulate and sensationalise.

Murdoch hasn't had a majority stake in Sky News for 34 of it's 36 year existence. He hasn't had any stake in it at all for the last 5 years since Comcast, whose news outlets like NBC are seen to have a "left leaning bias" in the states, bought Sky Group. Although News Corp/Fox had the biggest shareholding for much of BSkyB's existence, it failed to own the business outright twice, which ended up in them selling up completely. Even then, it was demanded that Sky News be spun off into separate business. BSkyB was a merger between Sky Television and British Satellite Broadcasting, it just adopted the formers brand. BSB's stakeholders included the BBC, ITV, and Virgin.

I have watched it for 3 decades and it is a good service, and I'd say very important in an age of internet lies. It's no more partial than you'll get from ITN or the BBC (like them, Sky is a news gathering agency, hence why it's regulated the same way). Sure, you can point to Kay Burley's shenanigans from time to time (she's the only original presenter as far as I can see, so I assume you are referring to her?), or Adam Bolton loosing his rag live on air with Alistair Campbell in 2010, but then I could also point to numerous other instances of Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr, Allegra Stratton, and Andrew Neil at the BBC for years.

Edit: If anything, Sky News was brutal when they reported on News Internationals phone hacking scandal. At one point, the Murdochs basically put pressure on their director (I can't remember it exactly, but something along the lines of trying to remind them of what side their bread was buttered) and Sky News reported it. Murdoch was apparently furious about the coverage.

 

[pluk]

I completely agree with your views on Murdoch, and I have no doubt that had been allowed to, it would have turned into Fox News UK in no time. But Sky Television was initially set-up by Murdoch to offer pay TV services to the UK market. His News International print titles were bought to manipulate and sensationalise.

Murdoch hasn't had a majority stake in Sky News for 34 of it's 36 year existence. He hasn't had any stake in it at all for the last 5 years since Comcast, whose news outlets like NBC are seen to have a "left leaning bias" in the states, bought Sky Group. Although News Corp/Fox had the biggest shareholding for much of BSkyB's existence, it failed to own the business outright twice, which ended up in them selling up completely. Even then, it was demanded that Sky News be spun off into separate business. BSkyB was a merger between Sky Television and British Satellite Broadcasting, it just adopted the formers brand. BSB's stakeholders included the BBC, ITV, and Virgin.

I have watched it for 3 decades and it is a good service, and I'd say very important in an age of internet lies. It's no more partial than you'll get from ITN or the BBC (like them, Sky is a news gathering agency, hence why it's regulated the same way). Sure, you can point to Kay Burley's shenanigans from time to time (she's the only original presenter as far as I can see, so I assume you are referring to her?), or Adam Bolton loosing his rag live on air with Alistair Campbell in 2010, but then I could also point to numerous other instances of Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr, Allegra Stratton, and Andrew Neil at the BBC for years.

Edit: If anything, Sky News was brutal when they reported on News Internationals phone hacking scandal. At one point, the Murdochs basically put pressure on their director (I can't remember it exactly, but something along the lines of trying to remind them of what side their bread was buttered) and Sky News reported it. Murdoch was apparently furious about the coverage.

I'll acknowledge that, somewhat ironically, I am not approaching this without bias! I hate Sky as a company, the way they go about their business, their attitude and their output. I'm sure that skews my opinion of them...

The level of editorial interference will always be unknown and up for debate, especially in the polital which is more nuanced. Where I see the culture of the organisation though are in the more overt but not 'political' aspects. Any 'entertainment as news' will nearly always come from within the Sky network, you want a talking head it'll come from within the group, you are reviewing the papers the NI titles come first. Other news outlets don't do that.

You mention Sky's reporting of phone hacking, and maybe there was some heavily critical aspects of NI titlrs, but what I remember is a fawning interview with the old scrotum himself on Sky news, when as far as I'm aware he granted no interviews with any other news organisations. I wonder why? As far as I know Sky News are the only TV news chanel to be caught email hacking themselves, another good indicator of the influence of them on their culture and operation.

It seems I'm not alone, the latest research I could find put Sky behind BBC, ITV and Chanel 4 news for how trusted they are by the public. I have jo doubt they are better now than they have been I'm the past, but they just aren't for me and won't get my trust on impartiality or generally.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

As far as I know Sky News are the only TV news chanel to be caught phonehacking themselves, another good indicator of the influence of them on their culture and operation.

I'm going to pick you up on this one, and I cannot stress it enough. Sky News was never accused of, or implicated, in the phone hacking scandal.

For balance, they did hack the emails of the 'canoe man' (and pass them along to the police to help secure a conviction), but this is the only time that Sky have been found, or accused of, hacking of any sort. I'd put it on the same sort of level as when the BBC flew a helicopter of an accused man's house, whilst he was on holiday, during a police warrant raid, and accused him of sexual impropriety against minors.

I remember is a fawning interview with the old scrotum himself on Sky news, when as far as I'm aware he granted no interviews with any other news organisations. I wonder why?

Because it was an exclusive and it drove eyeballs toward the station, raising its profile and its advertising spend for the appearance, which of course he had a financial vested interest in.

Any 'entertainment as news' will nearly always come from within the Sky network, you want a talking head it'll come from within the group, you are reviewing the papers the NI titles come first. Other news outlets don't do that.

ITN and BBC are as guilty as Sky for the cross promotion of titles, entertainment, or light news which they own appearing in segments. Especially once you take shows like The One Show into consideration. How many times have you seen the BBC report on Doctor Who, or EastEnders, or Strictly? This is permissible bias and really just good business.

I really do not like Murdoch. I really don't like News UK. I'm not a fan of Sky and think that their satellite and IPTV approach has stifled progress within the industry. I am as biased against Sky as it could come, but the news gathering division is one of the most professional outfits in the country.

 

[pluk]

I'm going to pick you up on this one, and I cannot stress it enough. Sky News was never accused of, or implicated, in the phone hacking scandal.

For balance, they did hack the emails of the 'canoe man' (and pass them along to the police to help secure a conviction), but this is the only time that Sky have been found, or accused of, hacking of any sort.

That's the one I was thinking if, and fair enough with my error, posted edited for accuracy. Still not a great look in my book though.

ITN and BBC are as guilty as Sky for the cross promotion of titles, entertainment, or light news which they own appearing in segments. Especially once you take shows like The One Show into consideration. How many times have you seen the BBC report on Doctor Who, or EastEnders, or Strictly? This is permissible bias and really just good business.

That's just it. Yes BBC will stick on some strictly fluff, ITV dancing on ice etc, but you are just as likely to see someone on these channels promoting or reporting on (from an entertainment news pov) things on the rivals and sky. You pretty much never see the same on sky with other broadcasters.

Sky sports news for example, you'd have been hard pressed to know that F1 existed as a sport until Sky owned the rights for it, then it was suddenly the most important sports news there was. What's the chances?! That's also reminded me of a story I recall of Sky news pulling an invesragutve and criticsl piece of FIA/F1 because they had just purchased the rights. Although I look forward to you pointing out I've miss remembered that one too!! it all just points to a lack of editorial impartiality though.

Maybe they are the most politically impartial outlet, but perception is built on more than that and if that is the case they really undermine themselves in my eyes.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Sky sports news for example, you'd have been hard pressed to know that F1 existed as a sport until Sky owned the rights for it, then it was suddenly the most important sports news there was.

I raise you the BBC and Glastonbury.

My point is that they all do it. I can see why you feel it's pretty shady, but they are a commercial news channel, which is part of a wider commercial network, so I get it. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are a bit different because their news is produced for them by the independent ITN (ITV only owns 40% of the company), so you won't see as much cross promotion going on.

Maybe they are the most politically impartial outlet, but perception is built on more than that and if that is the case they really undermine themselves in my eyes.

For the record I don't think they are the MOST, but they are politically impartial (as much as one could be). They're certainly not in the same league as Talk TV or GB News.

 

[pluk]

They're certainly not in the same league as Talk TV or GB News.

Hell no, even I wouldn't cast that aspersion on them!!

 

[rob666]

The BBC have a very bad habit of promoting the next Panorama programme topic as the first headline and topic in the news, when it really shouldn't be...
And sometimes, in the morning, I want to watch the rolling news...not a bloody head shot of a dj doing his morning radio show.
If I wanted that, I would put the sodding radio on.

 

[Matt.GC]

I do fully understand the argument about impartiality at Sky News, because of what happens with anything else Murdoch touches. I think it's something that Sky News has grappled with since it has existed.

I can understand why Murdoch appeared on Sky News during phone hacking because he was much sought after for a grilling at the time, News Corp had a 49% stake in BSkyB, so bigger scoop, more viewers, more advertising revenue. If you have to come to the UK and be grilled by MP's and journalists, I suppose he decided he may as well make some cash from it (although Sky News later reported that he was unhappy with how he thought they treated him).

It's also hard to dissociate them as when events like 9/11 happened, they were able to make use of Fox News resources in the states to get coverage. Open up the Sun or The Times before the Comcast takeover and they were using Sky News Weather. Then you had all the tacky stuff like the plugging of "Sky News HD" as a way to monetise a channel that the parent organisation is mandated by law to provide free to air on terrestrial TV. But I suppose that's the issue you have when a have a commercial news service.

Sky News also provided for Channel 5 news for a number of years before they went back to ITN. They are also the biggest provider of radio news in the UK (broadcasters like Global use them). It's also important to note that the BBC, ITN, and Sky do also share information and resources with each other from time to time. The first footage used for the Omagh bombings was sourced from Sky and shared with ITN and the BBC for example. It's also a regular occurrence for them to share information like footage and interviews with eachother immediately after the source organisation has broken the news.

Sky normally mention a disclaimer when reporting on something to do with their parent organisation. When Sky were reporting on News International, they would say "News International, which is owned by one of Sky News parent companies News Corp...", and when reporting on Universal GB last year they disclaimed "The studio - which, like Sky, is owned by Comcast....".

There is something disingenuous about all the plugs though. How many times have the BBC started News at 10 with "a Panorama investigation has found out..." or ITV with Tonight (sadly, no longer with legend Trevor McDonald), or Channel 4 News with Despatches. Sky once interviewed the director of a new drama on Sky One! I don't care if there's a "powerful" storyline coming up in Coronation Street or who won Strictly. I want to watch some real bloody news. I find ITV News is by far the worst for this.

 

[Matt N]

In other news, it would appear that Owen Jones, a Corbyn supporter and left-wing activist, has announced that he is leaving the Labour Party and started backing a new initiative, We Deserve Better, which aims to promote Green and independent candidates over Labour candidates in seats where Labour are vulnerable: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...1&cvid=ded9d66c68b4439292dca4ed85463457&ei=14

It's stuff like this, as well as the recent return of George Galloway to Parliament and the calls for him and Jeremy Corbyn to form a left-wing political movement to compete against Labour, that makes me wonder whether the Tories leaving government is the foregone conclusion that some make it out to be. If the left fights with itself, then the FPTP voting system means that the Tories get back in.

Personally, I think that if the left wants to win the next election and turf the Tories out, they need to put aside petty grievances and unite around their common aim rather than try and fight against each other. The right-wing parties have been very, very good at this over the years. For instance, the Brexit Party may not have agreed with everything that the Tories stood for, but they stood aside in all 317 prior Tory seats at the 2019 election because they felt that uniting with the Tories and helping them into government was the best way of accomplishing their common aim of "getting Brexit done".

I have always supported the idea of a similar alliance of left-wing parties, with Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens uniting together around a common aim of "getting the Tories out". This would entail the alliance putting forward the party with the best chance of winning in a particular seat and the other two standing aside (so Labour stands only in seats they occupy and seats where they stand the best chance against the Tories, the Lib Dems stand only in seats they occupy and seats where they stand the best chance against the Tories and the Greens stand only in seats they occupy and seats where they stand the best chance against the Tories).

Perhaps a formal alliance wouldn't even be needed, but I just don't think that in-fighting among the left is a way to get the left to win the election.

 

[Tom]

Then he's obviously not interested in removing the Conservative Party from power. Labour is the only vehicle for that.

The Green Party is seriously deluded and would dangerous in many respects (and not the environmental ones) if it stood a chance.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

In other news, it would appear that Owen Jones, a Corbyn supporter and left-wing activist, has announced that he is leaving the Labour Party and started backing a new initiative, We Deserve Better, which aims to promote Green and independent candidates over Labour candidates in seats where Labour are vulnerable: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...1&cvid=ded9d66c68b4439292dca4ed85463457&ei=14

It's stuff like this, as well as the recent return of George Galloway to Parliament and the calls for him and Jeremy Corbyn to form a left-wing political movement to compete against Labour, that makes me wonder whether the Tories leaving government is the foregone conclusion that some make it out to be. If the left fights with itself, then the FPTP voting system means that the Tories get back in.

Personally, I think that if the left wants to win the next election and turf the Tories out, they need to put aside petty grievances and unite around their common aim rather than try and fight against each other. The right-wing parties have been very, very good at this over the years. For instance, the Brexit Party may not have agreed with everything that the Tories stood for, but they stood aside in all 317 prior Tory seats at the 2019 election because they felt that uniting with the Tories and helping them into government was the best way of accomplishing their common aim of "getting Brexit done".

I have always supported the idea of a similar alliance of left-wing parties, with Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens uniting together around a common aim of "getting the Tories out". This would entail the alliance putting forward the party with the best chance of winning in a particular seat and the other two standing aside (so Labour stands only in seats they occupy and seats where they stand the best chance against the Tories, the Lib Dems stand only in seats they occupy and seats where they stand the best chance against the Tories and the Greens stand only in seats they occupy and seats where they stand the best chance against the Tories).

Perhaps a formal alliance wouldn't even be needed, but I just don't think that in-fighting among the left is a way to get the left to win the election.

The left is always fighting with itself and chasing it's tail, it's the reason the Tories won in 2010 and 2015.

The right is also having its own fair share of infighting at the moment, with Reform acting as an anchor and dragging the Tories further down into the depths of Neo-Nazi-Fascism.

I'm a little with Owen on this one though. Getting the Tories out is all well and good, but at what cost, and most importantly, what are you going to do when they are out? I saw an advert this week on a social media network, from Labour, proudly announcing that they will deport more asylum seekers faster and more efficiently than the Tories. I don't want that. I want to be kind. I want to vote for the party of inclusion. I want to vote for the party for the worker. The party for nationalisation and public good. The party that puts people and country before personal and corporate profit. That's not the Labour party under Starmer at the moment... It was supposed to be. He was elected leader on that platform. He has turned and cut and rowed back more promises than I care to remember. He has disenfranchised me.

 

[Benzin]

Starmer too afraid of putting off the right wing centrists from voting Labour.

See the nonsense regarding the latest England football shirts and his fence sitting. Does it more than Corbyn did when there were plentiful open goals in a post Brexit vote Tory.

Though at the moment the best tactic is to just sit and twiddle thumbs whilst the Tories backstab each other.

 

[WillPS]

Not quite, I understand what you're getting at but you're slightly off about the ownership.

Murdoch could never get complete ownership of BSkyB (including News), later just Sky. The then News Corp famously only owned 49% of the company and Murdoch didn't have editorial control of Sky News by design.

Sky News predates BSkyB. It was launched by Sky Television which was, in fact, majority controlled by Murdoch.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Sky News predates BSkyB. It was launched by Sky Television which was, in fact, majority controlled by Murdoch.

It does predate BSkyB, and it was majority controlled by Murdoch... For about 17 months.

 

[Matt N]

Scotland has a new, expanded law on hate crime coming into force today (this is not an April Fool!). It has been highly controversial, and the key difference between this law and previous hate crime laws is that it now prosecutes “threatening or abusive behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred” on the grounds of a number of protected characteristics such as transgender identity, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and others. The Guardian has posted quite a concise summary of the law and why it’s controversial: https://www.theguardian.com/society...why-is-it-controversial?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-5

First Minister Humza Yousaf has argued that the law balances protection of hate crime victims with protection of freedom of expression.

However, the law has been controversial. Some have taken issue with sex not being given as a protected characteristic, meaning that misogyny is not considered a hate crime under the law. Other groups, such as gender critical feminists, have argued that the new law could be weaponised against certain groups to prosecute them for expressing their opinions. Some individuals have already said that they are going to get JK Rowling, a prominent gender critical feminist, prosecuted for hate crimes under the new law from today.

Yousaf and SNP officials have officially stated that the threshold for prosecution is “very high”, and that “asserting that sex is a biological fact or that it is not changed by the gender someone identifies as cannot be considered a hate crime under this legislation”. However, concerns are still being raised due to the law’s capacity to log “non-crime hate incidents”, which fuels worries from some groups that purely expressing opinions may lead to legal ramifications.

What are people’s thoughts on this law?

 

[DiogoJ42]

I'd love to comment.... but I would be arrested.

 

[Benzin]

Ew gender critical feminists. Just TERFism with a different name.

Honestly, people need to be more aware that "muh freedom of speech" does not mean freedom from consequences from it. But alas the Internet has made people dumber not smarter.

 

[pluk]

Some individuals have already said that they are going to get JK Rowling, a prominent gender critical feminist, prosecuted for hate crimes under the new law from today.

Fortunate for her then that 'people' don't get other people prosecuted and they have no real say on the application of the law.

I don't really get the point of this new law. It's basically existing harassment which can already be aggravated as a hate crime, but now its a standalone offence. Same thing, different order of words.

 

[Tom]

It's a hollow political statement, as are many things with the SNP: designed to create a superficial distance between itself and the wider United Kingdom.

 

[Benzin]

It's a hollow political statement, as are many things with the SNP: designed to create a superficial distance between itself and the wider United Kingdom.

Can't really blame them for not wanting to be associated with it mind.