Sorry, while I agree the BBC wastes funds hiding information (the Balen report into its anti-Israeli bias being the most pertinent example) I am not quite sure where the non-Murdoch owned press bit comes from?Xsjadoblayde said:As for the BBC, well they, the conservatives and sexual assault seem to all go hand in hand these days. It's only recently started to come into public knowledge, but yet again, taxpayer's money is being spent hiding information from the public and fighting FOI cases with the non-Murdoch owned press. This little piss-happy puppy is just a single protrusion from a very ugly problem.
Are you suggesting the Sun and the Times somehow let the BBC off?
The Murdoch owned press is all over the BBC; they see it as a hugely over funded, state-owned monolith that exists on a market distorting and entirely unfair, unavoidable tax levied whether or not you use it's services.
I personally have some sympathy with the tax argument - its really unfair to have to fund the organisation when I never use it.
There's loads of examples of this sort of "Murdoch owned" reporting. I can't link the Times because... paywall.
If anything, I'd suggest, it's the non-Murdoch owned press, especially the more left wing outlets, the Independent, the Mirror and the Guardian, which support the BBC despite the endless waste and scandals.