Wadham “feeding Murdoch empire”
By Jonathan Tomlin
By Jonathan Tomlin
Wadham’s Student Union has controversially voted against a referendum on whether to save almost £5,000 by switching from Sky TV to BT Vision.
A motion put to the SU initially proposed switching the subscription from Sky, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, to BT.
But an amendment was made to ask the opinion of all Wadham students, which was rejected by 11 votes to 12.
If the SU made the switch, they would save almost £5,000 a year, but would lose a few channels, including Sky Sports 3 and 4 and Sky Arts.
Sarah Jacobs, SU Vice-President, sent an email around the JCR after the meeting, criticising the decision to “continue to pay an approx. £5000 to feed the Murdoch Empire”.
When asked for comment, Jacobs said: “It’s really frustrating that a (fairly small) number of students who sometimes watch the smaller channels on Sky have prevented us from saving a huge amount of money, which could be put to use to improve college facilities
“But ‘wasting money’ is not the whole story. I personally think the News Corp focus of the motion was relevant, since approximately £5000 a year going to feed the Murdoch Empire, with its crazy amount of power and influence over UK media and current opinion, is a significant amount to be paying.”
News Corporation, whose Chairman and CEO is Rupert Murdoch, owns a 39 percent stake in BSkyB, which operates Sky.
One Wadhamite, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “I think the Murdoch Empire is the most institutionally disgusting company.”
But Omar Salih, SU Sports Officer, defended the vote: “I think one of the issues was that not every channel would be included. Students would not be able to watch cricket, which is important to some students.”
Wadham SU President Jahnavi Emmanuel declined to comment.
photo/Xavier de Jauréguiberry
perry mason
01/06/2012 at 02:29
i know when it comes to hating Rupe, people become moronic but this is one of the best yet!
even if they subscribed to BT, they will still be indirectly “feed[ing] the Murdoch Empire” (LOL) as BT pays Sky to carry channels etc.
also are they going to stop using paper of record in the UK – The Times – for reference, research, etc because of the “Murdoch Empire”?
Every Male Undergraduate In College
01/06/2012 at 10:27
WADHAM’S GONNA FUCK YOU IN THE ARSE WADHAM’S GONNA FUCK YOU IN THE ARSE WADHAM’S GONNA FUCK YOU IN THE ARSE WADHAM’S GONNA FUCK YOU IN THE ARSE WADHAM’S GONNA FUCK YOU IN THE ARSE WADHAM’S GONNA FUCK YOU IN THE ARSE WADHAM’S GONNA FUCK YOU WADHAM’S GONNA FUCK YOU WADHAM’S GONNA FUCK YOU IN THE ARSE
Wadham SU Treasurer
01/06/2012 at 16:41
The purpose of the Student Union is to represent the students and thereby give them what they want. There is a substantial number of students who would have lose out if the change had happened. It was the democratic decision of those present at the meeting to stay with Sky and it was made clear that there is more than enough room on the budget to pay for it whilst ensuring that all other areas of college life have more than enough funds as well. As for the whole Murdoch issue, the above comment from ‘perry mason’ highlights the hypocrisy of such an argument. The motion to change was defeated in a constitutional way and Wadham SU continues to represent the student body. End of.
Antoni
01/06/2012 at 22:26
This is a bullshit article. A constitutional decision was made and some people clearly can’t get over it. It’s politics, the point is to vote according to your interest and the majority of students at the meeting happened to prefer Game of Thrones and Test cricket over a vague promise of £5,000 spent on ‘other stuff’.
Now if you really cared about that, then you should’ve worked on the motion, rallied support and made a stronger case. You raised a controversial issue and when you got outvoted you immediately started complaining about what was a legitimate SU decision. Telling everyone how upset you are in official SU e-mails and blaming it on ‘the lads’ in the OxStu is a ridiculous and childish kind of response.
Alex Bramham
01/06/2012 at 23:04
I object to the principle that a simple majority is appropriate, especially considering most people it would affect didn’t turn up to the meeting. 12 v 11 isn’t statistically representative of student opinion, especially considering that a slight change in attendance would have swung it. £5000 wasted is a real shame, nothing to do with Murdoch. I’d rather have the money than have some SU spend it on my behalf. Why not just lower meal prices all round and cover the defecit with the five grand, excess money is absurd. Or put it into hardship grants or something. Should have gone to the meeting, but put off by the bullshit of the last one and all the meat free mondays nonsense.
Ladham member
02/06/2012 at 00:10
What a ridiculous article. Clearly this was a slow news week or the publisher was too lazy to do some real research. A motion got voted against by a majority decision, i.e. democracy, and apparently that constitutes news. The only thing regularly watched in the JCR is sport, and so the money is well used. But once again we hear these wishy washy suggestions about how money could be put to better causes, most of which are completely unrealistic. I also fail to understand why everything has to be politicised. If you want to save money, fair enough, but there was no need to bring the ‘Murdoch empire’ into it. I also think for the SU vice president to express their opinions on a college wide email is inappropriate, as they should remain neutral, with opinons saved for the meeting. I’m fed up with those who don’t get their own way constantly running to the papers, resulting in pointless articles like this.
It's grim up North (London)
03/06/2012 at 20:51
Sensationalist headline of the week goes to….Jonathan Tomlin, write about some serious issues, you cunt.