Taking a haircut
Aha, it’s part two of our review of the hoplessly polarised coverage of Mark Thompson’s Edinburgh keynote. Part one covered the Telegraph, Mail and Guardian; now here’s a quick rattle around the rest starting with London’s Financial Times.
Ben Fenton (from behind a paywall) focuses on the BBC-Murdoch battle on the front page, noting Thompson’s claim that “commercial and political forces” that in the writers words are “determined to undermine the broadcaster’s independence”. The FT, always good on the counting and corporate front, has been fairly critical of the News Corp and Sky in the UK (not, for example sympathising with Sky on its battle with Ofcom). However, here the paper can say it is focusing on the real behind the scenes story; the pink ‘un ain’t going to write about Ross is it?
There’s a predictable react quote from News Corp here too – “He [Thompson] has failed at any point to address the impact that the scale and scope of the BBC’s activities is having on an allmedia digital marketplace”. Let’s wait to see what the blowback from News Corp is in the coming days – which you will most likely see in the FT (but don’t expect News to say it is impossible to sell The Times online because of the BBC website crowds out the market for news – News doesn’t give up that easily).
No upside for the BBC from the Daily Express, even though Mark Thompson said that Richard Desmond’s Five should be allowed to charge Sky for its channel. No, a short piece warned that the “gravy train had hit the buffers” as BBC stars are warned “take a pay cut or face the act”. But could Five charge Sky big carriage fees? Or only if it increased the price of the Daily Star to stop biting The Sun’s behind? But perhaps we are digressing.
The Daily Mirror, which you might think would go for a simple defence of the Beeb against the Murdoch interests, opts instead for the role of critical friend. Mirror bosses have long thought that the BBC can’t go on spending money like this, as a leader – Saving Auntie – makes clear. It concludes, rightly, that “Stars can’t expect to keep pocketing vast salaries when many licence fee payers who fund them are struggling to make ends meet” – and name checks Clarkson and ‘Anne Robertson’ (presumably former Mirror journalist Anne Robinson).
Patrick Foster at The Times (behind the paywall this one) writes “Big names to leave the BBC as Thompson pledges fast and deep cuts”. There’s no mention of the criticism of Sky at all, or the call to allow ITV to charge the sat-caster for ITV1, but instead a focus on the need for executive pay cuts.”The Director-General of the BBC warned yesterday that some of his most senior lieutenants would be asked to leave the corporation as part of “gutwrenching” savings,” the paper says, and also notes that Thompson hinted “he would accept a freeze to the licence fee”.
Finally, there is a surprisingly subdued response from The Sun, given the attacks on the parent company. A short page two from Leigh Holmwood warns that BBC stars can “like or lump” pay cuts, and in a nice spin, notes that BBC troops will be able to watch BBC shows on a new ‘international iPlayer’ as if this bit of BBC expansion were a good thing. Mind you, an unreleated leader (Beeb Boobies) puts the BBC firmly in the left camp (again) noting: “Why can’t BBC lefties put their prejudices and accept that the Cameron-Clegg coalition is proving to a remarkable success?”
Overall verdict: not a great day for Thompson. Mirror fails to come out in support, and no sign that the Mail will back the BBC in any way in a Murdoch-BBC war. The Telegraph’s leader shows how hard a full scale assault on the BBC would be, but the only allies that the BBC boss can count on are The Guardian and to a degree from the FT.
This is not enough; if Thommo were leader of the Labour party he’d have to be making some inroads into the Mail, commanding the Mirror, and even neutralising the Telegraph. As it is he still has the press against him; let’s hope the Doctor Who scripts keep delivering the audiences.
