Is Murdoch right to say the BBC needs to be cut down. How could this be done?

Like many who have answered, I do not have too much faith in Rupert Murdoch nor his son. But the questioner asks is what he said at the Edinburgh Festival yesterday right and to that I have to give an emphatic YES YES YES.

The BBC has been hell bent for very many years in using its enormous income from taxpayers money to try to stifle all competition and become a monopoly again like it used to be before Parliament changed the law to allow commercial TV and then commercial radio in the UK. I also believe the BBC, which I used to have the most utmost faith in as a worldwide seafarer when I was far from home and dependent on the BBC General Overseas Service (later renamed BBC World service) to keep in touch with what was really going on everywhere, I really admired the excellent diction and immaculate use of spoken English, the superb comedies like the Goon Show and the excellent discussion programmes like Any Questions when it was chaired by David Jacobs and Freddy Grisewood, when it was so much better than today.

Because very sadly since those days quality standards of BBC broadcasting has plummeted on all counts, while the amount we all have to pay has soared to totally unreasonable levels to line the pockets of people like those mentioned by the questioner, and to pay for gross overstaffing, gross over payment pf senior BBC Directors far more than they merit to have free holidays for their families at taxpayers expense.

The BBC now has far too many TV channels we do not need, introduced solely to try to eliminate competition and they have almost succeeded in putting ITV out of business. The excellent ITV News channel, far better than Sky News and BBC News 24 had to close down not because it could not compete not on quality, but because the BBC has the unlimited taxpayers pocket to finance itself and a parliament that willingly agreees to increase the licence free to grossly unfair amounts. What I do admire about Rupert Murdoch is the way he has fought back with Sky TV and with his newspaper empire and beaten the BBC'S dirty tactics in a way ITV failed to.

I totally agree with Timbo that as soon as analogue TV has finally closed down any household should have freedom of choice as to whether they watch the BBC or not and if so which channels. This can easily be done through Sky satellite and Top up TV card technology, and the licence fee can then be abolished. Only radio should still be paid by the taxpayer and the cost of that can be minimal. I also think the BBC website should only be accessible by subscription, much like such internet services as Winzip and Norton are.

Yes if that happened while I do not subscribe to either Winzip or Norton nor to watch the Adult Channel, I personally would subscribe both to watching BBC TV Channels and accessing the BBC website. Because I do consider them well worth paying for. But that is my exervcising my personal freedom of choice.

I don't personally think it is fair. Of course the idea of public television wouldn't appeal to Murdoch or his father, who's view is of media as a commodity that should be bought and sold as such, and has made billions doing just that. The BBC runs on the ethos, or at least it's supposed to, that the media and the information therein is a public good that should be available to all, an ethos which I personally support. Hence why its the BBC that covers public events, such as elections. It also has political shows which aren't quite as blatant as fox news etc. in their support for one political party over another, eg Question Time (which, in relation to one of your criticisms, once devoted an entire show to the expenses scandal in which the MP's present were deservedly roasted by the audience)

However, it is true that it's supposed impartiality does sometimes border on indifference, eg. the refusal to broadcast the appeal for Gaza. I don't think this requires an organisational change in order to fix it, just a bit more guts. Although I would like to see some of the regulation relaxed and some of it's more veteran presenters/journalists tempt their luck a bit more eg Paxman/Marr.

It's true the BBC has a charter of political neutrality, but this shouldn't mean not taking on the political establishment as a whole, which I believe it is in it's mantra to do as it's supposed to be the publics media and the working of the political class is a public matter.

His suggestion has been a long time coming. I don't care how the trimming of the BBC is done as long as it is thorough and soon.

Millions of citizens are fed up with being forced by the state to pay taxes towards maintaining the 'fat cats' elite that run the BBC.

The organisation should be made to seek its own funding sources in a competitive manner, just like ITV and Channel 4. Time the BBC released the populace from this 'Atlas' sized burden.The time is now.

I don't think any member of the Murdoch family has any right to make any sort of statement about the BBC. You can bet your life on it that any comments made by them are to suit their own ends, not anybody elses. It's a pity his family don't feel this strongly about paying their taxes.

It's none of Murdoch's business. He's only stirring the shite because the BBC is improving and buggering up Sky's audience ratings. I only subscribe to Sky because the greedy bastards out bid everyone else for the sport. I watch BBC News 'cos Sky news is crap. I never watch Sky movies 'cos they're so dated. I never watch Sky documentaries because they're so purile and I don't buy Murdoch newspapers 'cos of their Fascist leanings. I dislike Murdoch himself because anyone who gives up their birth nationality for gain is a pure shitebag! But, the bastard's got me by the goolies 'cos I'm just an old feller who loves sport and am virtually housebound. Not very keen on the brat of a kid of his either! Still, I guess,with all that money you haven't had to turn an arm for the kid's probably entitled to be a touch iffy! (Hey? The buggers don't own Yahoo, do they?)

Yes I think Murdoch is right in wot he implies about the BBC. News in the press like the Mail, Mirror & Telegraph and on such as Channel 4 is far better and less biassed than on the BBC. As to wot shud be done, the Licence fee shud be abolished and BBC financed exactley like Sky and Setanta etc. by the card, so only those who want to watch Jonathen Ross or Terry Wogan etc. etc. have to contribute to paying the prats extortinate wages.. .

Murdoch is not interested in providing a service to his consumers it is about being in power and control - that is why he sends vasts sums of money to the Republician party in the US.

And this is from the man who not only owns Sky but also the Sun, Times, Talksport in the UK. Fox News and others in the US and other news providers around the world. Has anybody actually seen Fox news it is not a news chanel it is a mouth piece for the far right.

Murdoch is only interested in using his business interests to the benefit of himself.

Yes the Beeb has faults - but it is far more impartial than anything that Murdoch produces and it is advert free.

He is right, but probably not for the right reason.

Public service broadcasting should only produce things that wouldn't get done by the commercial sector.

People might find this an elitist view, but they would presumably find nothing elitist about the reduction in their licence fee.

The problem is no journalists can swallow their pride and just report. They all seem to have a bias. If I were in journalism I would want to slam every politician I could find something dirty on.

And why would the owner of the Sky / News International network want his largest UK competitor "cut down"?

I think his criticism is biased, and most of yours is singularly untrue.