Its bosses are understandably alarmed by these attacks, and they realise a
Tory government may be less sympathetic. This explains why they agreed last
week to share online video news content with newspaper websites. The
Corporation knows its very successful free website is seen by papers as
unfair competition ? the most egregious example of the recession-proof BBC
sticking its greedy fingers into other people’s crumbling pies.
So it has cunningly come up with a plan that suggests it cares about
hard-pressed publishing groups. Four of them ? Daily Mail and General Trust,
Guardian News and Media, Telegraph Media Group and Independent News and
Media ? will carry BBC news videos. And why not, you may say? None of these
publishers provide much, if any, homegrown visual content, and the
Corporation’s clips will enhance their websites.
But let’s not pretend the BBC is motivated by altruism. There is no better way
of legitimising its much criticised website ? and protecting it from
brickbats elsewhere in the media ? than to share parts of it with its
critics. Newspapers will find it more difficult to attack the BBC for having
a free website if they regularly draw on it themselves.
Nor is the BBC giving anything way. Far from being an exercise in altruism,
the agreement could be interpreted as a cynical act of self-promotion. If I
am browsing, say, The Guardian’s website, and open a BBC video clip, it will
be branded as the BBC’s. And, if I follow the links, lo and behold I will be
swept along to the Corporation’s own website. The BBC will probably end up
attracting more traffic to its website as a result of what is presented as a
generous act of sharing.
In a way I take my hat off to Mark Thompson, the director general, and his
overpaid sidekicks. At one and the same time they are undermining the case
of their critics and promoting the BBC’s interests, while hoping to come up
smelling of roses. It is particularly difficult to understand why Telegraph
Media Group and Guardian News and Media, both of which have a limited
capacity (and greater ambition) to produce their own video content, should
be so eager to use the BBC’s.
There is a further worrying aspect to this affair. News International, which
owns The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and News of the World, has
rebuffed the BBC’s overtures. So too has Trinity Mirror, publisher of the
Daily Mirror, and Express Newspapers. The press is split over an issue ? its
future on the internet ? where it needs to be united.
Newspapers will only be able to charge for access to their websites if they
act together. It makes no sense for The Times to charge while The Daily
Telegraph remains free. Needless to say, I am not in favour of newspapers
asking readers to pay because I want them to fill their coffers with gold.
Unless they succeed in monetising the internet, some titles face decline or
even closure ? which is not in the public interest.
I realise the issue of BBC video clips is a separate one, but I regret that
the Corporation should have succeeded in dividing, and apparently ruling,
our national newspapers.
Guardian has taken Mirror’s trolley in intensive care
There is a general rule in life that one often spends time fretting about the
wrong people. I had long assumed that before the end of the year we would be
sending food parcels to Sly Bailey, chief executive of Trinity Mirror. Last
October the company’s shares stood at just over 5p, valuing it at about £13m.
Now it seems that investors may have panicked. Last week, Trinity unveiled an
operating profit of £49m, admittedly a decline of 31.4 per cent, but hardly
catastrophic in the circumstances. There are even signs, according to
Bailey, that the worst of the advertising downturn is over.
Of course, the company faces enormous editorial challenges with its national
titles, all of which are haemorrhaging sales, but it isn’t finished yet. As
I write, the shares stand at 81.5p.
But just as I am mentally wheeling Trinity Mirror out of intensive care, a
patient on another trolley hoves into view. It is Guardian Media Group
(GMG), which last Friday announced a pre-tax loss of £89.8m in the year to
29 March. These appalling figures include a loss of £36.8m on The Guardian
and The Observer, which we already knew about. The rest is accounted for by
losses on the group’s other newspaper as well as its radio operations.
It is one thing to poke a stick at The Guardian when it seems in rude good
health. When it lies on the floor heaving for breath, one’s natural instinct
is to empty one’s pockets.
On the brighter side, GMG’s separately accounted for venture with Apax
Partners in Trader Media Group produced profits of £40.2m, though it lost
£23.9m in its joint venture in Emap. I doubt whether £20m of identified
savings across GMG will now be sufficient, and I fear the company’s plans
for world domination will have to be put on hold.
Newsnight took a dim view of the Great War
One of my recurring thoughts is that even the trashiest newspapers provide a
far more serious forum for debate and discussion than supposedly upmarket
The final item on last Friday’s Newsnight on BBC2 used the funeral of Henry
Allingham, the veteran of the Battle of Jutland who died recently, as a
launchpad for a discussion about some of the effects of the Great War. My
spirits perked up a little bit when I saw that my friend Andrew Roberts, the
distinguished historian, had been matched with Andrew Motion, the former
Alas, all hopes were dashed. On a not particularly busy evening for news, only
five minutes or so were given over to issues that have preoccupied hundreds
of historians. Martha Kearney asked Mr Roberts and Mr Motion four rather
predictable questions each. All that was established was what every GCSE
student knows ? that the Great War led to a breakdown of deference and a
transformation of society. What was the point of it all? Such a process
would make Shakespeare or Plato appear dim.
View full article here
Author: Ezine Article BoardThis author has published 5774 articles so far.