Save the Telegraph at all costs. How else would we know that all six of these prominent, but electorally vulnerable, MPs had majorities of exactly 8,817 at the last General Election?
You sacked me, and The Spectator banned me from commenting even though I was a paying subscriber, so cry more. At the end of all of this, the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator will still exist. The shrieks of their present fading ornaments are admissions of unemployability anywhere else. It's called capitalism, darlings, but now that it has come for you, then you are practically begging to be nationalised as "a strategic asset". You really do think that that is what you are. Perhaps you could join the Army? I hear that it is a bit short.
If I owned Manchester City, then I would be setting up my own newspaper, since exclusive access to that would be a good start towards immense profitability. There is nothing to stop that. Anyone can start a newspaper. Only the existing posh ones go crying to the Government for "undertakings" and "guarantees", and then only when their own ideology threatens them with acquisition by jumped-up Australians or by princes of the Trucial States.
Rupert Murdoch was allowed to own The Sun as Editor-in-Chief without any talk of trustees or what have you, and the same would apply to Sheikh Mansour's masthead featuring an eagle and the rather fitting motto, Superbia in Proelio. The tabloids are heavily staffed by public schoolboys, but when it comes to Colonial or Protectorate ownership of papers that their parents would have in the house, then the Empire strikes back.
Well, if there are going to have to be these trustees, or these independent directors, or this Advisory Board, or what have you, then political cover should be bought by allocating one quarter or perhaps even one third of the seats to the pro-Brexit and anti-woke Left that is economically egalitarian and pro-industrial, with an independent and peaceable foreign policy. Names are available on request. And before you ask, my office would contain Damian Thompson, stuffed and mounted. He has been both many times before. But not in that order.
It’s not a repudiation of the Telegraph’s ideology at all-this would be the effective nationalisation of our newspapers but by a foreign state-and a dictatorship at that.
ReplyDeleteRupert Murdoch is many things but he’s not a foreign government-and allowing a state let alone a dictatorship to own our free press would be a contradiction in terms. “Anyone” cannot set up a newspaper with the extensive network of highly-placed sources, reputation and loyal readership (and thus advertisers) that come with a great heritage such as that of the Telegraph. It’s as ridiculously stupid as saying anyone can set up the New York Times.
That’s not a privatisation but a nationalisation-and freedom of the press is fundamental to a free democracy, unlike who owns the railways. No one buys print newspapers since the internet-but it has 1.7 million online subscribers and millions of monthly unique users. For context, unpopular rags such as the Morning Star have a circulation below 10,000.
ReplyDeleteOwnership of the commanding heights is absolutely fundamental to democracy, and foreign state ownership, at least, is incompatible with national security. None of that applies to a newspaper.
Delete1.7 million is still not very many, and a lot of the Telegraph's are abroad. What an idea of Britain they must have. Actually, I know what an idea of Britain they must have.
No, it isn’t-all free democracies have some private ownership of infrastructure-you are aware that the state can regulate things without owning them aren’t you? A free press is fundamental to a free democracy because, unlike any other industry, it is what holds the government to account and exposes abuses of state power. A press owned by a government cannot do that. You really don’t get that?
ReplyDeleteIt is very many paying subscribers for a mere newspaper in the digital age-and it has millions more free readers. Such things, like the high places sources on which great journalism depends, come only with long established reputations.
That is one way to describe being a spooks' sewer. But that is not why anyone buys the paper. It is what they read having done so, in order to get their money's worth. That is the model. Commercially, it is not a bad one.
DeleteI am not aware of a successful example of the British State's "regulation" of the key assets that it used to own.
The rubbish in newspapers is what and for the worthwhile stuff-and the Telegraph and Spectator do plenty of very worthwhile journalism. Far from being a spooks sewer, they recently exposed what the spooks were up to-during lockdown, for example. As I say, a free press is the one freedom on which all other freedoms depend. You only get stories like Watergate in countries with free newspapers.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is why, if you get them in Britain, then it has certainly not been in the Daily Telegraph. People buy that for the fogey funnies, half of them as a joke, the other half as the joke. They then read whatever else, hitherto the spooks, put in, because they have bought the paper. It works.
DeleteOn regulation of things that we all used to own, their acquisition by foreign states proves that it is a complete con. The Telegraph titles and The Spectator have been cheering that on forever, or calling for outright formal deregulation without even so much as the pretence. Well, if that will do even for the water and electricity supplies, then it will certainly do for them.
I’ve explained the difference between a free press and utilities-state-owned utilities don’t publish what others wish to suppress, expose official wrongdoing or hold governments to account.
ReplyDeleteThe rubbish in newspapers pays for the good journalism. Every scandal of the past few years, the Rotherham and Rochdale Asian abuse cover-up, the MP’s expenses scandal, the Lockdown Files etc was exposed thanks to a free press.
You haven't "explained" anything.
DeleteThe spooks themselves pay to plant their stuff, then the millinery and whatnot sells it to the target audience. It looks as if this no longer is the target audience, and that they will let anyone have the Telegraph. Watch out for a lot more of their material in The Guardian. The ties already exist.
The taxidermy of Damian Thompson, I love it.
ReplyDeleteI could charge people to be photographed with it, and I could sell plastic miniatures of it, ideally ones that glowed in the dark.
DeleteThompson has done nothing for Bishop Byrne. He is a complete fraud.
You haven't "explained" anything
ReplyDeleteI have and repeated it in the last post-it appears you can’t read. Especially if you still don’t get the difference between ownership of utilities and free newspapers. As Jefferson said, I’d prefer newspapers without a government to a government without newspapers.
Touchy.
DeleteTo be fair, if an unpopular leftist rag such as the Morning Star (circulation minus 10,000) were taken over by the Chinese government, nobody would notice the difference-nor care much.
ReplyDeleteYou have obviously not been reading it.
DeleteThe Telegraph really had a Chinese Government supplement for several years.