BSkyB alone (let alone Murdoch's vast press and publishing empire - Times, Sun, HarperCollins etc.) spent £140m on marketing last year or 4% of turnover, in contrast the government only spent 0.2% of its total expenditure on PR (less in actual terms than Proctor & Gamble).
So who is spinning, when The Sun criticises local government over its PR spend? What services and benefits does Murdoch provide for his rip-off £42 a month for US imports and footy on Sky?
We know the Sun is despicable - 'pure evil' you could say for calling for social workers to be sacked over Shannon Mathews and baby P, while Sun journalists were virtually camped out in Mathews home for FOUR months while printing 'her story' and didn't spot the 'sickening conditions' they later claimed were easy to spot. Sack the Sun is all I can say. Don't buy it or the Times or Sky TV.
Murdoch is spending his and his shareholders money. He has one aim, making more money.
ReplyDeleteThis Government is spending tax payers money. Money that it takes to improve our lives, not spend on lying to us in an effort to get re elected.
If was genuinely doing a good job it wouldn't need to spend our money to tell us how good it is.
Yep, Gramsci was right about the press - http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/1916/12/newspapers.htm
ReplyDeleteYep, Paul, Gramsci was right - I think the only good thing about having a Tory government will be that most of the press will actually revert back to printing some good news for a change instead of the relentless trawl of every little negative they can find just to get their beloved Tories back in power and get rid of a weak-left Labour they only ever gave notional support too once it was undeniable they couldn't stop them getting elected. Of course the price for a bit of press politics positivity is an awful anti-poor Tory government. Definitely a price NOT worth paying!
ReplyDeleteGS: Back to this old chestnut that somehow having to pay for Murdoch's crappy TV and papers is better than having to pay for taxes that provide essential public services - it is a bogus argument.
ReplyDeleteI unfortunately indirectly fund Murdoch (and other right-wing Tories) every time I unknowingly buy a product that has been advertised on his tawdry media empire - which is just about everything. The average person pays over £300 a year for ITV and more for Sky, in comparison the licence fee seems a bargain. And how is it transparent or fair that we pay to these companies when they manipulate the market so they have monopolies on top level football or some other product or service? You only have to look at the mess 'private banks' and other financial institutions have got us into, to see that we the public have to pay in the end - at least it is clear to see what taxes we pay - who know that every family was going to be hit for tens of thousands to pay for multi-million chairman of these fine companies that have destoyed our economy. Yeah - you stick to your lovely right-wing neo-liberalism. The game is up, the movement is leftward - people want the government to sort this out - not more emaciated government and more of the same runaway inequality - with those at the top on grotesque unjust salaries that we all have to pay for.
GS...and another thing. Most of what the government spend on advertising - which is a tiny proportion of its total spend, is spent on things that benefit us - educational promotions on health, on crime, on organising social events - on bringing communities together. Would you rather there no drink-drive campaign or road safety advice or info on local services? If you so clever give me real examples of where government are spending money on 'getting re-elected' and it is better run into tens of millions or you are just picking on extreme cases to try and make an argument.
ReplyDeleteNeil,
ReplyDelete"GS: Back to this old chestnut that somehow having to pay for Murdoch's crappy TV and papers is better than having to pay for taxes that provide essential public services - it is a bogus argument"
I didn't say that and that wasn't the subject of your original post. All I was comparing is Government PR Vs Murdoch PR.
I don't care how little Government PR is, it is too much when it is designed to tell us how good the Governement is, as opposed to telling us about a service that is delevered. It is here that all Governments have difficulty understanding the difference.
As to the issue about spending money on Murdoch's crappy TV or essential services the debate is only about what services are essential. If we were to start that one I am sure you will bring up old people facing a cold winter without any money money and escalating fuel bills, I will counter with nappy outreach coordinators or other non job. In the end, though, it comes down to what is essential, and helping old, poor, people facing a cold winter is.
PS
"Yeah - you stick to your lovely right-wing neo-liberalism"
Can't we, just for once, have a discussion without you descending in to meaningless perjorative terms like this?
"I unfortunately indirectly fund Murdoch (and other right-wing Tories) every time I unknowingly buy a product that has been advertised on his tawdry media empire - which is just about everything."
ReplyDeleteYour argument is with the the company spends its advertising budget, not with Murdoch, he only provides the pipe.
"The average person pays over £300 a year for ITV and more for Sky, in comparison the licence fee seems a bargain."
How they spend their money is their choice. As it happens I agree with you but that doesn't mean I have the right to impose my view on other when it comes to choice of TV. Indeed, I have just posted that one BBC progarm alone, More or Less, is just about worth the licence fee on its own, but thats only my opinion and no reason for me to inflict the licence fee on others.
"And how is it transparent or fair that we pay to these companies when they manipulate the market so they have monopolies on top level football or some other product or service?"
The fact that you say comapnies, as opposed o company, means there isn't a monopoly. Anyway, the EU has addressed that one and forced the football authorities to spread their product.
"You only have to look at the mess 'private banks' and other financial institutions have got us into, to see that we the public have to pay in the end - at least it is clear to see what taxes we pay - who know that every family was going to be hit for tens of thousands to pay for multi-million chairman of these fine companies that have destoyed our economy."
As opposed to MP's lording it over us? And do you really beleive that if we had a national, monopoly, bank that it would be any better? It would be an ineficient mess that would become the play thing of the Governement and used to fund their pet projects.
I'm not going to get in to a discussion of the banking crises here, suffice to say I don't agree with the way that they were allowed to get in to this mess and that we should be bailing them out. (I agree with Mark W's solution of debt to equity swaps)
" The game is up, the movement is leftward - people want the government to sort this out
- not more emaciated government and more of the same runaway inequality - with those at the top on grotesque unjust salaries that we all have to pay for."
lets wait for the GE to find out what "the people" want, shall we?
GS: "How they spend their money is their choice"
ReplyDeleteYes, but how much choice do they really have? Most people would not have a clue that everytime they pick up a product they pay for SKY and ITV and hundreds of other media companies, and over a year it costs them over £600.
Like you say, the footy monopoly was only broken because 'big government' - the 'hated EU' no less, intervened (slightly). Even then Setanta are only a small irritant in Murdoch's ear rather than a real competitor.
This sort of makes my point - big government is needed to allow people a choice. Yes they get it wrong and yes we should keep government to a minimum and as efficient as possible - but we do need to regulate the market quite a bit to protect consumers.
"your argument is...[with] advertising budget"
Murdoch has media which reaches into almost every home in the land on a daily basis, yet on top of this he far outspends (in percentage of turnover terms) the government on PR.
In comparison the government has daily negative PR in the press by private companies with a vested interest in destroying public services, so as to increase their profits and those of their advertisers.
"I don't care how little Government PR is, it is too much when it is designed to tell us how good the Governement is"
But the vast majority of the PR spend doesn't do this at all, it is just public information on health, crime etc. Give examples of PR as party political broadcasts - if anything the Tories are far worse at abusing government expenditure than Labour - now they control most local councils (because of the unfair voting system) and their friends own all the local press.
Sorry you found my neo-liberal dig too much - I get carried away. I think the GE would be a walkover for Labour if it wasn't for our Tory biased media.