The Australian, Rupert and James Murdoch, evil public broadcasters and buddy, we need a monopoly on your dimes ...

(Above: aspirational chairman James, caught in a William Randolph Hearst moment in what might be a try out for a re-make of Citizen Kane).

Chairman Rupert's minions and hounds are ramping up the campaign against public broadcasters as they thrash about desperately in search of a business model in the new world of the intertubes.

This unfortunately involves presenting Chairman Rupert as a leading light fighting for democratic institutions and a devoted pluralist, as opposed to a plundering picker of pockets. (As if the man responsible for Fox News could sell this tosh to anyone with a left as well as right side to their brain).

If it weren't so laughable, it would be tragic, but I guess if you get paid to write tosh, then tosh you must write.

Here's the editorialist in today's The Australian, under the poignant header A lesson from James, showing how well he or she can transcribe the master's thoughts:

The speech delivered by James Murdoch in Edinburgh on Friday should be noted by anyone interested in a vital and independent media and its role in maintaining an open democracy. Mr Murdoch, chairman and CEO of the European and Asian operations of News Corporation (publisher of this newspaper), attacked state funding of media, specifically the on-line operations of the BBC.

News is arguing that there must be a charge for internet content and Mr Murdoch went straight to that point in his speech: "Dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market makes it incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet. Yet it is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it." The BBC's growing dominance on-line was a threat to pluralist, independent news, Mr Murdoch said.

Of course what he really means to say is that the dumping of content free into the marketplace - especially by public news organizations - interferes with the desire of Chairman Rupert to ramp up an oligopoly whereby the main players all agree to charge for their content, and agree not to leak the said content for free on to the intertubes. But so long as there's public broadcasters, there'll be a long, relentless leak.

With taxpayers already paying for the public broadcasters (through taxes in Australia, via a licence fee in the UK), there'd be a revolt if they double dipped and tried to charge for their already paid for once content. So all they have to do is just stop it, before they go blind, walk off the playing field, and leave it to Chairman Rupert and the other gangs to carve up the cake to suit themselves.

So it's time to ramp up the socialist references - perhaps even a mention of Pravda might not go amiss - and talk about state broadcasters.

His is an uncompromising view that in a media world where the boundaries have disappeared, it is time to reassess the role of state-backed media outlets. He argues the attitudes, business models and policy frameworks of today's media are based on a time when there was a scarcity of broadcasting spectrum and "central planning" was deemed necessary. While the industry in the UK is different from ours - there is a TV licence fee and the BBC's pound stg. 4.6 billion budget makes for a monolithic media player - his speech does hold lessons for Australia.

State broadcasters made two key mistakes, he suggested. They treated their customers as passive and did not take them seriously, unlike commercial operators who recognised the power of customers to choose. Secondly, instead of concentrating on areas where the market was not delivering, the BBC tried to compete head-on for audience share.

Well I guess tosh is never complete without a bonus amount of paranoid tosh. What on earth to make of a statement that says public broadcasters treat their customers as passive and don't take them seriously and don't recognize the power of customers to choose, then berate them for (successfully) competing head-on for audience share. When they should really be off in a garret somewhere, not getting in the way, and not attracting customers.

But wait there's more. It's not only the BBC that's in the sights of Chairman Rupert and his minions:

The ABC should take note. In a fast-changing media world, its raison d'etre must be to innovate and deliver in areas where the commercial operators fail - not to chase ratings through replicating their success.

Not to chase ratings? So they should be down around the twos and threes like the SBS, and nobody watches them, so then the next logical step is just to get rid of them and save the taxpayers' the unfair burden, because they're just so happy to read the thoughts of Chairman Rupert and aspirational Chairman James?

Now here's the farcical rub, which hinges on the notion that since consumers have chosen (how they love choice) not to pay for content, content providers are in a bit of a dither, and - gasp - we might end up with Pravda rather than the privilege of shoving our spare moola down the throats of News Corp as a way of ensuring the fearless investigative journalism that will keep the politicians honest (so how is it they endlessly bitch about Media Watch and its fifteen minutes once a week attemps to keep the media honest?)

... Mr Murdoch's comments are particularly apposite in a more general sense at a time when some commentators, worried about the viability of newspapers, have urged the establishment of state-sponsored papers, or news collection. This is a recipe for disaster. The best guarantor of independence and plurality is profit, not supervision and dependency on government funding.

Uh huh. The best guarantee of plurality is profit! So let's help plurality by getting rid of public broadcasters dumping content into the world for free? A plural world is a world made safe for Chairman Rupert and his minions? Well that's a mighty fine singular view of plurality. Suddenly I begin to understand the concept of singularity.

Independence is sustained by accountability to customers who deliberately and willingly choose a service they value.

Which is why I deliberately and willingly chose not to pay for any media services provided by Chairman Rupert, and deliberately and willingly spend a lot of my media time either listening to the ABC or watching it. And not because it's free, because outside Foxtel, almost all of Chairman Rupert's content is currently free. No, it's because I prefer it.

I only visit The Australian to hear the enchanting cry of the loon, but the day that's taken away will be roughly equivalent to the day they stop the Indian mynah birds squawking outside my window. I'll happily live with it.

Charge away Chairman Rupert and your minions, and squawk all you like about the public broadcasters, but that hole in the dyke ain't going to go away anytime soon. Live with it and quit your fussing.

Try putting out a product people want to pay for. Walk the walk, instead of squawking the talk. Because I do pay for content. Just not yours. Have a nice day.

Oh and if you want to read what Mark Scott said about James Murdoch's BBC proposals, no reason to go off to The Australian and give them a click through. Why not head off to The Guardian, under the header James Murdoch out to 'destroy the BBC', says ABC head:

"... as commercial news services were now considering charging for their online news, there was no longer a place for a free, public news service provided by the BBC.

"Think about this: the reason it sounds like a bad idea is because it is a bad idea … Strip away the lofty language, and you see that the James Murdoch solution is less about making a contribution to public policy than it is getting rid of the BBC's services, effectively destroying the BBC as we know it – a tragedy for the UK, a tragedy for the world."

He added: "It would mean ending the mixed economy in provision of news – introducing a purely commercial service would impose a limitation on diversity of views far greater than any we now know.

"And charging citizens to hold power to account is not the way to rectify an existing imbalance or promote a more meaningful democracy."

Scott contends that the ABC is seen as part of the greater public good. Well Aunty has her flaws but up against Chairman Rupert and his minions, her works look okay, and sometimes pretty good. I know its news services are biased towards the Liberal National party coalition, but I live with that. I know members of the commentariat endlessly stalk its corridors delivering right wing rants on any available talk show, but I live with it as part of the need to show fearless balance when dealing with Pravda-reading scoundrels.

But News Corp as a supplier of quality journalism that will defend democracy? Why on earth would anyone pay for the Daily Telegraph and think somehow it's a bastion for democracy? It's a tabloid for tits, scandal mongering and the footy.

Feel free if that's your poison - nothing wrong with tits and footy, and anyway you might just be coming down from listening to Kyle Sandilands - but I never did have the taste for kool-aid ...

Why am I reminded of Mr. Burns?

Mr. Burns: I'll keep it short and sweet -- Family. Religion. Friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business.

Burns: Look at that pig. Stuffing his face with donuts on my time! That's right, keep eating...Little do you know you're drawing ever closer to the poison donut! [cackles evilly, then stops abruptly] There is a poison one, isn't there Smithers?
Smithers: Err...no, sir. I discussed this with our lawyers and they consider it murder.

(Below: James Murdoch with a graph. Does it show the amount of money spent on fair, balanced and detailed reporting of the issue of climate change by News Corp and by the BBC? Nah, it's just another whinge about leveling the playing field by abolishing it, as if whining was somehow an entrepreneurial right of capitalists everywhere).