Exclusive: Mark Thompson on BSkyB and Murdoch

The director general of the BBC speaks to Joan Bakewell in an exclusive interview with the <em>New S

In an exclusive interview with Joan Bakewell in the New Statesman this week, director-general of the BBC Mark Thompson issues a strong warning about the potential power of Rupert Murdoch if Jeremy Hunt allows the News Corp takeover of BSkyB:

Because of commercial decisions taken ten or 20 years ago, BSkyB is in an utterly commanding position and will have far more money than the BBC or any other media player in the UK to spend on content. . . We're talking about a concentration of media power in the UK that's unheard of in British history and unheard of anywhere else in Europe. The combination of that kind of power with ownership of a significant part of the newspapers people read, as well as an internet service provider - this is extraordinary power.

Thompson goes on to say that he has already called for the decision to be referred to the competition authorities in a letter to Vince Cable and his McTaggart lecture in Edinburgh last year.

In addition, he offers a challenge to the government in the wake of funding cuts to the BBC:

Given the shape of what's happening - the relative decline of other sources of electronic news, the funding security of ITN, the ability of commercial radio to fund news, the difficulty newspapers are having in funding newsgathering - it is going to be more, not less, important that the BBC has sufficient resources to be able universally to deliver high-quality, strictly impartial news to the British public.

Despite his criticism of the media mogul, Thompson refuses to rule out working for Murdoch in the future.

Bakewell: Would you work for Murdoch?
Thompson: (Laughs) I'm fully, fully engaged doing what I'm doing at the moment.
Bakewell: It's not a "no"?
Thompson: I wouldn't regard it as a "yes", either. It's important to look at the shape and balance of our media sector, rather than trying to demonise anyone.

Read the full interview - which also covers BBC impartiality, ageism and executive pay - in this week's New Statesman, out tomorrow.

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Twitter/@suttonnick
Show Hide image

From "cockroaches" to campaigns: how the UK press u-turned on the refugee crisis

Harrowing photos of a drowned toddler washed up on a Turkish beach have made the front pages – and changed the attitude of Britain's newspapers.

Contains distressing images.

The UK press has united in urging the government to soften its stance on the record numbers of people migrating to Europe. The reason? A series of distressing photos of the body of a three-year-old Syrian boy, face down in the sand on the Turkish coast.

Most papers decided to run one or more of these pictures on their front pages, accompanying headlines entreating David Cameron to take notice. While your mole wholeheartedly supports this message, it can't help noticing the sudden u-turn executed by certain newspapers on the subject of the refugee crisis.

First, they used to call them "foreigners" and "migrants" (a term that has rapidly lost its neutrality in the reporting of the crisis) who were flooding Europe and on the way to "swarm" the UK. Now they've discovered that these people are victims and refugees who need saving.


 

Photos: Twitter/suttonnick


The Sun went so far as to run a column by Katie Hopkins five months ago in which she referred to them as "cockroaches" and "feral humans". She wrote:

Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad. I still don't care. Because in the next minute you'll show me pictures of aggressive young men at Calais, spreading like norovirus on a cruise ship. Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches.

Photo: Twitter

Now the same paper is urging the government not to "flinch" from taking in "desperate people", those in a "life-and-death struggle not of their own making":

Photo: Twitter/@Yorkskillerby


And the Daily Mail still seems confused:

 

It's not really the time for media navel-gazing, but perhaps the papers that have only just realised the refugees' plight can look closer at the language they've been using. It may have contributed to the "dehumanising" effect for which Cameron and co are now being condemned.

I'm a mole, innit.