Nobody expects UK Business Secretary Vince Cable to block Rupert Murdoch from buying the 61% of Sky he doesn’t already own. But Cable, a popular politician here in Britain, is unhappy about Murdoch’s tightening grip on UK media. The official cannot even start an examination until News Corp has filed its takeover bid with the European Commission in Brussels. I’m told that News Corp is still in pre-notification discussions with the IC and conversations are going back and forth between Brussels and News Corp headquarters in Isleworth, west London. Formal notification should happen within weeks.
Enders Analysis — the TV consultancy which has already written to Cable appealing for him to block News Corp’s Sky takeover on media plurality grounds — estimates that, sometime between 2015-2020, News International and Sky will control 50% of the UK newspaper and television markets respectively. Sky is already bigger than the BBC is terms of broadcasting revenue, earning £5.4 billion compared with the BBC’s £3.6 billion licence fee. “I think the chances of an intervention are very slim indeed,” Enders tells me.
This morning’s Financial Times has called on Cable to investigate the deal. Yet Cable, who’s a Liberal Democrat minister in the government coalition, is experiencing what any British politician – Conservative or Labour – fearful of upsetting the Murdoch press feels right now. Because Murdoch’s power, according to Labour PR adviser Lance Price, is rooted in fear of what he might do as much as in fear of what he has actually done. Murdoch has grumbled he doesn’t understand why Sky News cannot be more aggressively right-wing like Fox — ignoring the UK’s impartiality rules when it comes to news. Meanwhile, Murdoch has already visited conservative Prime Minister David Cameron at 10 Downing Street.
Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has said it looks as if News Corp already owns Sky, so he can’t see an argument for media plurality. But Lord Puttnam (aka David Puttnam), the Labour peer who used to run Columbia Pictures, has warned that News Corp would have untrammelled control of Sky News if other shareholders are driven out. It’s argued that independent BSkyB board directors such as Gail Rebuck, CEO of Random House, act as a brake on Murdoch influence and maintain the pay-TV broadcaster’s independence.


“ignoring the UK’s impartiality rules when it comes to news.” Are you kidding me? I’m sorry, I didn’t know that Deadline was turning to comedy.
“Fear” of Rupert. Why is it the left accuses those on the right of using “fear” to rally the troops but when they “use” fear to rally the troops they aren’t using “fear’ but using “common sense?” Suddenly they are worried about “bias” in the British media. Yes, I forget the “BEEB” is fair and balanced. True journalism is dead everywhere. It has been for a longtime.
Water your plants everyone.
Chauncy
The future of Fox News, laid out right there. Sometimes it’s best to kill the baby in the crib.
“ignoring the UK’s impartiality rules when it comes to news”
Isn’t the BBC owned/controlled by the government. Where was the application of these ‘impartiality rules’ when for the last several decades the BBC reported on anything remotely political?
Since Murdoch can’t control the other news sources, what’s the harm in allowing another voice – a different point of view – especially one that questions the assumptions of the others?
What are you afraid of?
I’m with you, Chauncey. It’s high time Europe had a voice to challenge the lamestream worship of Charles Darwin and the myth of global warming.
How anyone could dream of giving Murrdoch more influence in the UK in the light of the News of the World/phonetapping/Andy Coulson scandal is beyond me. Everyone seems to agree that it was fear of Murdoch’s empire that led both the Labour government AND Scotland Yard (who they also have much sway with) to abandon any attempt at prosecuting anyone for the taps. Yet nobody dares imagine curtailing his influence, in fact they are actually going to allow it to grow. Madness.
Otiose, the BBC is certainly not controlled or owned by the government. And they provide lots of political content as evidenced by Newsnight, Question Time, and BBC Parliament.
I can’t say I am a Fox News fan…..their style is more about the first to scoop sometimes neglecting good accurate facts….investigative journalism is alive, contrary to some reports!
Hence I would agree that the Murdoch Empire should increase its stake in part at least…. Sky News has done well!
As someone who has worked in UK journalism, the country does not have impartiality rules as such, not for general reporting anyway. There is a tradition of striving for balance in the sense of trying to present news factually, as in who, what, where, when, why and how. This applies to both the BBC and independent broadcasters. News and comment are separated as much as possible. Thus, for many UK viewers, Fox News, which pushes its own conservative agenda, would not be considered a news channel in the sense of the word as applied in the UK.
Where impartiality rules do apply is during election coverage, where balance is required, both in terms of airtime and the nature of reporting, so as not to be seen to favour one party above the other, either in the amount of election coverage it receives or its nature.
I always laugh when I see the established media decrying the bias of Fox and NewsCorp. That is like the Corleone family decrying organized crime…
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
BBC-Fair and Balanced News for the Left.
God you Tea baggers are idiots.
As an American living in the States with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, who has friends in Australia, I caution those in the UK not to let Murdoch near mass media, unless you are ready for culture wars, and a news organization that is famous for inventing truth that will pit Christians against Muslims, class against class, race against race, nativists against immigrants, all to attract viewers to sell to advertisers, and worse.