Cable vs. Murdoch - a political vendetta?

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary of the new Lib/Con coalition, has "declared war on Rupert Murdoch."

Regarding the media mogul's plans to become a majority shareholder in BSkyB, Cable has announced that he personally intends to use whatever means necessary – including his pull in parliament – to block the takeover.

He intends to prevent Murdoch from becoming an "unrivalled power in the UK media market, with a dominant position in newspapers and full ownership of a pay TV company set for annual pre-tax profits of over £1bn next year."

And he is, quite frankly, talking out of his backside.

I mean, it's all very well for Cable to complain that "the proposed takeover of BSkyB increases the dominance of News Corporation and reduces the plurality of news sources" - yet that ignores the fact that there's already a media monopoly in the United Kingdom that does exactly that – it's called the BBC.

Every television owner in the United Kingdom is currently legally required to pay a license fee that funds the good old British Broadcasting Corporation – which delivers abundantly funded television, radio and DAB services that put any commercial competition at a serious disadvantage (I know this, because I worked in UK commercial radio for a number of years.)

When Cable argues that "allowing such a dominant force to be created increases the likelihood of the market being distorted" he blithely ignores the fact that the UK media market is already distorted.

One can't honestly buy his claim that Murdoch's media empire will damage the competition when the primary competition is a nationalized media empire that racked up 916 million pounds in sales last year (that's almost a billion quid – similar to the profits of BSkyB) – above and beyond the 3.5 billion pounds the BBC already 'earns' through license fees.

Don't get me wrong – I'm not knocking the BBC. I love programs like Top Gear and Doctor Who and one of the reasons I cancelled my cable subscription in America is because we didn't get BBC America.

However, when it comes to the business of a 'free market' in the British media, we need to admit that it's not figures like Rupert Murdoch who are creating problems. The reason so many UK media groups are disappearing off the map is because the BBC is driving them out of business.

Just look at local radio – how can a commercial station compete with a local BBC station, which doesn't need to worry about raising money through selling advertising? The fact is – it can't. That's why more and more stations are being swallowed up by regional networks – run on a shoestring with networked content in an effort to remain profitable.

As long as the BBC exists, we'll never have a truly 'free market' media system in the UK – so arguments that Rupert Murdoch's plans will 'distort it' are transparently hypocritical. In fact, News Corporation may even bring some balance – a different voice and a different point of view that finally has the clout to stand up against the increasingly politicized BBC.

But what really gets me about Cable's crusade is just how cynical it is. He's made no secret of the fact that he's pursuing a personal vendetta against Murdoch, which somewhat rankles with his assertions that terminating the takeover would be for the 'public good.'

Oh, I'll admit that if Ofcom and Cable do scupper Murdoch's plans, it might be good news for the media minnows who swim in the BBC's wake: but let's not pretend for a moment that those commercial enterprises – staffed by some of the most dedicated, talented and committed people I've ever worked with – are toiling in a 'free market.'

They exist as nothing more than a political indulgence – and Cable's undemocratic actions make their position even more precarious than it was already.

I'm not complaining because I support Rupert Murdoch. I'm complaining because I think Cable's words and actions are a massive abuse of power by a politician with an axe to grind.

If you disagree with me - fine - but just remember this:

It's all very well to cheer when a 'bad guy' like Murdoch gets his wings clipped by a monomaniacal Member of Parliament – but what happens when the next media company that he 'puts in its place' is the one that speaks for you?

Television shock!

On the surface of it, America remains superficially similar to Britain. We speak a (fairly) similar language and most of the things a civilized man craves (pork scratchings and gin) are available if you know where to look.

That does mean, however, that when you run into one of the the few cultural differences between the UK and USA, they really hit you by surprise. One such example is television:



Television back in England is a pretty decent affair. Not overly commercialized, full of original programming and with a 10pm watershed to make sure the kids didn't see anything naughty. A very satisfactory arrangement, in fact.

I'd even go as far as saying, having spent time in various countries, that British TV remains the best of all of them (although I do have a fondness for German telly, which tended to show soft core pornography after midnight.)

This is the sort of 70s-era, grainy, gratuitous titillation German TV features after midnight on most of their TV channels.

Okay, when I was growing up there were only four TV channels in the UK, but they were still pretty good channels. Best of all, BBC1 and BBC2 didn't have any commercials and Channel 4 showed most of the American TV shows I wanted to watch (with only a single commercial break in the middle.)

This screen used to be on the BBC during the middle of the night. I think it's called the 'Test Card.' Nobody explained why the little girl was playing naughts and crosses against an creepy disembodied clown. It gave me nightmares.

It was all those American TV shows whet my appetite for American TV. Programs like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Frasier made me think that all American TV was going to be similarly slick, polished and entertaining. When I first moved to the states - to an apartment that had Direct TV, no less - I was enormously excited at the prospect of over 150 channels of all-American entertainment.

Nobody in the UK 'got' Seinfeld, but we all thought Frasier was hysterical. It was a comedy of snobbery that translated sublimely to us class-obsessed Brits.

But, much to my horror, the reality didn't live up to the hype.

Sure, I now had hundreds of channels - but what they were filled with was a big shock for somebody used to the uncommercialized style of British TV.

For a start, American TV is prudish. Ridiculously so. Nudity - even so much as a nipple or buttock - is strictly verboten. Presumably, the guardians of American morality fear such wilful acts of nakedness might corrupt the youngsters plonked in front of the television for hours by neglectful parents.

When Janet Jackson flashed a (covered) nipple during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show, the FCC fined the network $550,000 for 'indecency.' The nipple was revealed for exactly nine sixteenths of a second.

Secondly, American TV is violent. Nudity might be banned, but blood, gore and guts isn't. In England, horror films like Hannibal are banned until the 10pm 'watershed.' In America, you'll often see them shown uncut (except for aforementioned nudity) at 10am!

The 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' which features no nudity or sex, is deemed perfectly acceptable fare to sit the kids in front of while you have a natter on the telephone to your mum.

Next, you'll find that American TV is stuffed full of commercials. There are three or four minutes of commercials between shows - and then between the opening credits! Immediately after the opening credits, you'll have another commercial break - then at least two more before the end of the show. To drag the whole thing down to the level of farce, you'll find a final commercial break wedged between the end of the show and the final credits!

If that wasn't bad enough, there's so much dead-air on 150+ channels that hours of airtime are sold over to 'infomercials.' These are basically fifteen minute commercials, advertising fitness machines and vacuum cleaners. Some of the more obscure channels, like the Sci-Fi Channel, basically run 'paid programming' for at least six hours a day - making the already annoyingly commercialized channels basically unwatchable.

Everything offered in America infomercials is priced at $19.99 except, ironically, the one example I'd decided to show you.

But lets imagine you do manage to find your favorite show and work up the patience to sit through the insipid commercial breaks. Next comes more idiocy from the television networks:

Let's say you like Knight Rider, which is on NBC (that's button #4, folks.) It's scheduled for 7pm every Wednesday - or so you'd think...

Except, instead of having a new episode every Wednesday, they're seemingly randomized. One Wednesday, you'll have an 'all-new Knight Rider episode!' The next week, it'll be a repeat, or something else entirely. In fact, it's only via a combination of clairvoyance and computer surveillance that you'll be able to keep track of your favorite show at all (which is, ironically, why many popular shows get terrible ratings and pulled off the air.)

Knight Rider - pornography for petrol heads.

Let's not forget the final injury to all this insult: The fact that you're paying for all this.

TV in America isn't free (unless you want just six channels of 'all-infomericals, all the time.') 93% of Americans sign up to a cable or satellite TV company like DirectTV.com to get even 'basic' cable packages.

This existing setup is so frustrating that it's spawned a monster - subscription TV.

It shows you can only push people so far. Now, instead of all the commercial rubbish, if you sign up for Cable or Direct Satellite TV, you can pay a monthly premium to get 'special' channels - like Showtime, Starz and HBO (which stands for Home Box Office.)

These are channels which show hit movies, totally uncut and uncensored, without commercial interruption. They also have some awesome original TV shows, like the Sopranos, Sex and the City and my personal favorite, The Tudors.

The Tudors - packed with all the nudity, violence and gross historical liberties that today's demanding Direct TV audience demands.

All these shows do filter down to 'regular' television at some point, but by that time, they're been hacked up and split into commercial-filled chunks, the nudity's been shredded and the swearing's been bleeped. Most people think it's worth the money to get them promptly and unadulterated.

In addition, Cable television and DirecTV offers the ability to record shows on digital boxes, meaning you can watch them whenever you want and even fast-forward commercials. It makes me wonder how those remaining channels which support themselves through advertising revenue manage to sell spots any more, since people can just flip right through them.

But while Cable television and DirecTV deals in a different level of television entertainment, the drawback to all those goodies is the fact that you have to pay primo dinero for them. A full Cable package can run you over $100 a month - every month! And there's no such thing as discount DirecTV - although the deals they offer these days, for about $35 of month, include those fancy gadgets I talked about the like the recordable digital TV box.

Wifey and I get a package which includes telephone, Internet and cable TV. That way, it's fairly cost effective. If we didn't have the 'package,' though, we wouldn't pay for cable at all. I'd just read a book or watch DVDs!

In any event, I've discovered that American TV is a thoroughly different animal to British 'telly.' It's more expensive, it's more commercialized and it's just more complicated. There are hundreds of extra channels, but seemingly not that much more to watch on them!

With digital 'Free View' boxes and the increasing popularity of Direct Satellite TV in the UK, I wonder if the situation in America is a foreshadowing of what's going to happen in Britain. I hope not. The few British TV shows we do get (like the wonderful Doctor Who) are not only a slice of nostalgia for me - they're also a reminder that some things are better when you don't commercialize the crap out of them.

Why can't you just listen to your doctor?

"Those adverts with their sure sense of how to play on our doubts and insecurities are a symptom of the restless energy of American capitalism."

In his dreary editorial for the BBC, Washington correspondent Kevin Connolly delivers the Beeb's mandatory sneer at the vagaries of American culture - but incidentally manages to mention a very valid concern.

Is it really wise to allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription-only drugs on the television?

If you've never been to America, you won't have experienced this phenomenon (and might even be skeptical of it, since it sounds so ridiculous.) But take it from me - the majority of commercials on Cable networks are for drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies advertise drugs for a variety of illnesses - from asthma to indigestion - and suggest that the viewer; 'ask your doctor if this drug is right for you.'

What does this result in? Millions of Americans going to their doctors and demanding he switch them from their current prescription (which works just fine) to the shiny new drug they saw on the television.

It's a logical progression, given the mindset cultivated by privatised health care. When you go to the doctor, you're not a 'patient,' but a 'customer' and that puts you in the driving seat regarding your health care. Unlike the NHS, if your American doctor doesn't switch your prescription to the shiny drug you saw on television, you can leave and find a doctor who will.

(Then again, most NHS surgeries are so blasé, you're lucky to get an aspirin and a pat on the head in the first place.)

When you give your bossy and demanding 'patient/consumer' access to medical websites like Web M.D., you end up creating a monster: An ignorant, opinionated customer who thinks their Internet-gleaned diagnosis puts them on equal footing with somebody with a doctor's licence.

This is why you end up with ridiculous situations like doctors being pressured into prescribing antibiotics for patients who have colds (read more about that here.)

What America really needs is a doctor who'll sit their patients down and give it to them straight.

"There's not a damn thing wrong with you. Go back to work."

"Lady - you have a cold. Deal with it."

"You have indigestion because you eat too much. Here's a leaflet about Weight Watchers."

"Your depression is caused by being 34 years old and living in your parent's basement. I'm cancelling your Prozac. Here's a prescription for getting up off your arse and getting a damn job."

And, of course, the most important one:

"You want to switch your current prescription drug for that one you saw on TV?" SLAP! "Get out of my office and quit wasting my time."

What America really needs is a doctor who's like the crabby, irascible Dr Cox on Scrubs.

“I’m a doctor. And we believe that without surgery, a patient in your condition can suffer from a major case of deadness.”

When Egos Attack

5AMENDMENT: Jack neatly pointed out in the comments section below that I'd made a glaring mistake. Good old Johnny Vaughn is the number one COMMERCIAL presenter in London. Chris Moyles, paid as he is out of the BBC's never ending advert-free back pocket, is 'non' commercial. And so manages to reign over London's listeners by a comfortable margin.

Overpaid chubmeister Chris Moyles recently lost out to Capital Radio's Johnny Vaughn as most listened to breakfast presenter in London - so you can understand him being a little bitter. (This is actually incorrect. Please see amendement above.)

That must only have been compounded when he also lost out on an interview with midget du jour David Gest, who turned up 15 minutes late for his spot on Radio 1's breakfast show.

Understanding as always, Moyles ranted: "Don't stand me up you freaky little man! Get your ass in my building. I don't care how many of the bloody Jacksons you know. That dude better come in crawling on his hands and knees."

When Gest did manage to wrangle his way through the West End's traffic, Chris Moyles had him banned from the studio.

BBC's most celebrated pie eater declared: "I'm shaking I'm so angry. If I was tough I'd kill someone today!"

Being on radio, of course, denied us all the pleasure of watching Moyle's jowls wobbling in fury.

.

David Gest, who's major claim to fame is being Liza Minnelli's ex husband, kept his mouth shut and remained dignified despite the porky presenter's verbal tirade.

.

You can hear what Chris Moyles had to say here...

.

It is, of course, great radio.

F*** off I'm ginger...

As some of you might have noticed, I was featured on BBC's Body Image documentry "F*** off I'm Ginger" the other night.

I was a bit nervous, but they didn't make me look like an idiot and I got some very surprised reactions (my boss left a voicemail: What are you doing on my television? Get off! I feel violated!)

Tina got a kick out of it too... Checking the ripples the program made on the internet a few days later, we found this comment from called Cybernoob:

"I thought the program was good and your guy presentin it was great. Just shows in America and other countrys no such problems exist wih redheads and is actually mostly embraced. Did you see that Italian woman that guy married in America? Hot hot hot!"

Yes. I married a hottie. Not bad for a ginger.