Not sure I agree with you on this Bazza....
There are laws in place to ensure SKY news has to, at least pretend, retain an impartiality.
As for Murdoch increasing his stake, he's the person who took HUGE finiancial risks to get the whole off the ground in the first place.
he's the one who invested massively in sports and movie rights, when everyone else was saying pay-tv would never work.
Why shouldn't he be able to reap the financial rewards of his huge financial investment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of ANY corporate monolith. But i get the impression that some (Murdoch, Gates) get a rougher than others (Jobs, Schmidt)...
Blimey, that was a long one
(
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 10:08,
Reply)
kittenball is lubberly....
but his hypno powers won't work on me!
(
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 10:18,
Reply)
But the one thing that separates Murdoch & Gates and Jobs & Schmidt
is monopolies.
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 10:24,
Reply)
I would argue
Jobs has monopolised the MP3 market just as much as Gates has monopolised the OS and software market.
Murdoch doesn't have any monopolies.
(
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 11:01,
Reply)
The impartiality point is reasonably sound...
What's more worrying about Sky news is that it's of such thunderously low quality.
Sky claims to have been breaking the news for 20 years. It doesn't realise how true that claim is.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 10:28,
Reply)
*** Comment of the day so far ***
(
Professor Fnord Regius Professor of B3ta Chronology, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 10:31,
Reply)
The thing is, if that's the argument against it
then it's based on taste, rather than any sound legal reason to stop it happening.
(
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 10:57,
Reply)