News International versus BBC

So Prime Minister Cameron has questioned the size of George Entwhistle's pay off from the BBC at the same time as claiming that the government would have a "hands-off approach" to the BBC, which must resolve its own difficulties. A year's salary for being encouraged to resign from an organisation that he had worked for 26 years and a job he had held for 8 weeks is maybe generous but no more than sacking him would have cost. He has also lost his career and reputation and all for displaying integrity and openness that was perhaps a bit naive in the cynical world of the media.

Meanwhile, over at News International just three weeks ago, the Telegraph announced that Rebekah Brookes had received a £7m pay off after displaying little integrity and no transparency after her 10 years as editor of the Sun and the News of the World and then as Chief Executive of News International. Currently awaiting trial for her role in the phone-hacking debacle, she was also responsible for commissioning and publishing stories that have damaged hundreds of lives. Did the Prime Minister pass any comment? It may be that integrity and transparency are debased values in Murdoch's world. It may also be that private sector payoffs running at more than 15 times the rate for public broadcasters is what the posh boys consider reasonable. It is after all pretty well the ratio of top salaries in the private sector compared to the public sector in the UK.

The reason that we instinctively trust the BBC is that it acknowledges its mistakes and has been its own fiercest critic in the last month. But most of all because it produces programmes on radio and TV as well as films and documentaries that are cherished for their quality and objectivity. It has a real-time website that is the first point of call for many of us during the day as we seek to keep abreast of world, national or local news. Yes, it is a loosely integrated operation with a lot of responsibility devolved to programme-makers who are expected to operate to the highest ethical standards. (Is this not the model that is  extolled for the successful digital age company?) When they get it wrong, as they do from time to time, they are ruthless in reporting the criticism made of the BBC, even if at the same time they defend themselves as they did with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Thames Pageant which was celebrity-driven drivel in the rain.

All the BBC services together: radio, tv, film and media cost no more than £12 a month, an absolute snip compared to News Corporation's part-owned Sky packages that are three times as high at typically £37 -£41 a month with no radio, media or educational content, let alone a world service. Sky is also largely dependent on off the shelf programmes bought from more creative broadcasters like the BBC.

So why is George trounced whilst Rebekah gets texted lol from the PM whilst taking home fifteen times as much? The News International stable has seized the opportunity to trash the BBC as have the government.  Is it just because the BBC is more progressive, ethical, transparent and egalitarian in its outlook? Or is it because News International and the government are fundamentally opaque, patronising, regressive, elitist and tolerate inequality in all its many guises?