New Statesman criticises Times for parental bias

The New Statesman has criticised The Times for turning a blind eye to negative comment about its News Corporation stablemate, satellite broadcaster Sky. In a blog post entitled 'Murdoch-owned "paper of record" fails to report BBC director general's comments on Sky', The New Statesman says:

"Mark Thompson's MacTaggart lecture impressed many with its effective rebuttal of James Murdoch's earlier address and its principled defence of public service broadcasting.

"A significant chunk of the speech was devoted to Sky, who the BBC director general criticised for not investing enough in original British programming. Thompson also warned that, if successful, Rupert Murdoch's bid to take full ownership of BSkyB would lead to a "concentration of cross-media ownership which would not be allowed in the United States or Australia".

"But you wouldn't know it if you only read the Times. The News Corp-owned paper reported on Thompson's speech but somehow glanced over his remarks on Sky and its parent company."

As the New Statesman points out, it's not as if The Times didn't find the Edinburgh International Television Festival (EITF) newsworthy it's just that its coverage was distinctly partisan.

Comments

[Chris Smith]

And this is news?? Murdoch's papers have always had a massive home-team bias for Murdoch's other interests!

We're seeing the same thing now with Richard Desmond... just at a much lower rent level!

[Mark W.]

How ironic that in the week of yet another tired honey trap 'exclusive' from The News of The Screws, its sister paper The Times is effectively accused of trading its professionalism in return for payments from a rich overseas businessman!

[Paula]

I paid £1 to read The Times coverage of the Edinburgh International Television Festival online.

Given they've clearly only told half the story, anybody know who I need to contact to get 50p back?

[Anonymous]

They're his newspapers, Murdoch should be allowed to tell his editors to run whatever he wants them to.

Then readers will vote with their wallets.

[Cassandrina]

Another poor "prepared" speech from Thompson. When will he realise that his communication and presentation skills are so low that his statement he could get an equivalent job and salary in the private sector is proving increasingly derisory.
He treats the public in the same arrogant manner that his editors display on the radio 4 Feedback programme.
His data on the poll that the bbc is approved by 70%+ of the population in specific newspapers (not the bbc fountain of knowledge The Guardian) is also a sick joke.
The approval should be 100% based on his question of approval for the bbc being in existence.
What we constantly disapprove and complain about is the quality, content, socialist bias, misinformation, arrogance, non-transparency, waste, overpaid bureaucrats including himself and his Trust, and a myriad other faults that the bbc daily display.
I recently complained about Shawn Laye's World at One for its misrepresentation and biased presentation. I got the usual intern inspired computer reply of no real content or value, which certainly did not address the complaint.
Did Thompson mention the bbc complaints received, acted upon? NO! Did he mention where he was taking the bbc? NO!
SO WHAT WAS HIS MESSAGE?
P45 time should be here for the bbc starting with Thompson, then a full restructure to provide a public service free of bias and filled with quality, truth, and balance.
A quick fix would be to get rid of the canned laughter on radio 4 so-called comedy programmes.
Thank you for the opportunity for my rant.

[Peter Martin]

The_MediaBlog - Reader wants 50p refund from Times after paper only tells 'half the story' (see comments): http://bit.ly/bnkBei

Excellent precedent.

That is, if applied equally. Voting with wallets-wise.

For instance, I could have many uses for £71.25