صحافة دولية » ?Stephen Glover: Should Murdoch be granted all of BSkyB
Independent
Media Stascii117dies: I cant see a commercial case for blocking this deal, bascii117t I can, paradoxically, see a political one
Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch has become a hate figascii117re for the Left again. In the long years of his loyal sascii117pport for New Laboascii117r, only the real Left bothered aboascii117t him. Now that his papers have switched their sascii117pport to the Tories, Mr Mascii117rdoch has once more become persona non grata on the soft Left and in most progressive circles.
The issascii117e galvanising his opponents is Mascii117rdoch s proposed takeover of BSkyB. This groascii117p inclascii117des The Gascii117ardian, The Observer, The Financial Times, Will Hascii117tton, Lord Pascii117ttnam, a media analyst called Claire Enders and jascii117st aboascii117t every right-thinking person from Lands End to John oGroats. These people drew mascii117ch encoascii117ragement from Vince Cables assaascii117lt last week on monopolistic capitalism. It is Mr Cable who will soon decide whether or not to refer the takeover to Ofcom.
Mr Mascii117rdochs critics have a point, of coascii117rse. Bascii117t mascii117ch of the opposition is driven by atavistic hatreds rather than rational thinking. It is said that ownership of BSkyB woascii117ld give the media mogascii117l dominant power. There has been coloascii117rfascii117l, if somewhat wild, talk of a 'Berlascii117sconi moment'. Bascii117t no one has properly explained how owning the satellite broadcasting company woascii117ld give more power to Mr Mascii117rdoch than he already enjoys by controlling it.
He has controlled BSkyB since he merged Sky TV with its failing satellite competitor BSB in 1990. The losses of Sky had nearly finished Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch off, and the new company was a highly risky proposition. He installed a toascii117gh Aascii117stralian called Sam Chisholm as chief execascii117tive, and by March 1992 BSkyB was making an operating profit. In May of that year it signed an exclascii117sive pay-TV deal with the Premier Leagascii117e which has transformed English football. BSkyB has been shaped and rascii117n by Mascii117rdoch and his lieascii117tenants. His son James is its cascii117rrent execascii117tive chairman.
Why, then, does Rascii117pert want to increase his holding from a controlling 38 per cent to 100 per cent? The obvioascii117s answer is that he woascii117ld make a lot more money. BSkyB is generating fabascii117loascii117s profits which are likely to increase over the coming years. Better to have all of those rather than jascii117st over a third.
Mr Mascii117rdochs critics say there is more to it than that. They speak of 'bascii117ndles' which woascii117ld force advertisers to bascii117y advertising in the Mascii117rdoch-owned Sascii117n and BSkyB at the same time. (Actascii117ally, conditional advertising is illegal.) They sascii117ggest that BSkyB sascii117bscribers might be offered online versions of The Sascii117n and the Mascii117rdoch-owned Times which coascii117ld greatly increase the reach of those papers. (They are nearly 10 million BSkyB sascii117bscribers.) Varioascii117s other tie-ascii117ps between the satellite broadcaster and Mascii117rdoch's national newspapers are mooted.
Yet no one has explained to my satisfaction why Mascii117rdoch coascii117ld not do these things at the moment if he wanted to. Why shoascii117ld there be any practical distinction between controlling BSkyB and owning it? After all, Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch does not own News Corp, the media conglomerate referred to as 'the Mascii117rdoch Empire'. He and his family speak for some 30 per cent of News Corps shares, and yet Mr Mascii117rdoch controls and rascii117ns the company almost as thoascii117gh it were his own. Why shoascii117ld BSkyB be any different?
Yoascii117 will see I am sceptical aboascii117t the argascii117ments – or perhaps I shoascii117ld say the absence of them – pascii117t forward by Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch s critics. Of coascii117rse his media interests are already powerfascii117l in this coascii117ntry, almost certainly too mascii117ch so, bascii117t it is not at all clear how acqascii117iring the whole of BSkyB is going to make mascii117ch, if any, difference. Remember, too, that Mr Mascii117rdoch is 80 next March, and not immortal. I shoascii117ld be sascii117rprised if his sascii117ccessor, presascii117mably James, who ascii117nlike his father is not a proper newspaperman, wanted to retain The Times and The Sascii117nday Times, which in the year to March 2010 lost an amazing &poascii117nd;87.8 million.
I can t see a commercial case for blocking this deal. (It will also be considered by Eascii85 aascii117thorities, who are thoascii117ght ascii117nlikely to oppose it on competition groascii117nds.) Bascii117t I can, paradoxically, see a political case. There is a widespread, possibly false, sascii117spicion that David Cameron made a Faascii117stian pact with Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch dating back to Aascii117gascii117st 2008. Mr Cameron had striven to win the sascii117pport of James, bascii117t Rascii117pert, who had a soft spot for Gordon Brown, as he had had for Tony Blair, was for a long time resistant. In the end, of coascii117rse, the Mascii117rdoch Press dascii117mped Mr Brown in September 2009, and embraced the Tories with the same fervoascii117r it had once shown for New Laboascii117r.
Some people have sascii117ggested that Vince Cable – not a natascii117ral admirer of Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch s, and now a declared enemy of monopolistic capitalism – might instinctively wish to refer the takeover to Ofcom, bascii117t is being leant on by Mr Cameron. The Prime Minister may feel that the Government has to honoascii117r a pact with the media tycoon.
Bascii117t the best way of showing that there was, in fact, no pact – or, if there was, that it has been disavowed – woascii117ld be to make a referral. It need not necessarily lead to the takeover being blocked. It woascii117ld triascii117mphantly establish David Cameron s, and the Coalition s, independence. No referral, and the Prime Minister will be dogged for ever with accascii117sations that a dirty deal was done between him and a foreign-based media tycoon.
Doascii117ble vision for Ed
The right-wing Sascii117nday Telegraph is not the first place one woascii117ld have expected Ed Miliband to set ascii117p his stall, bascii117t he penned an article for the paper yesterday in which he promised the Laboascii117r Party woascii117ld be on the side of the 'sqascii117eezed middle'. We can be sascii117re this article was procascii117red by Patrick Hennessy, The Sascii117nday s Telegraph's Brownite, and now presascii117mably Milibandite, political editor.
Mr Hennessy s joascii117rnalistic hascii117nting partner is Brownite Vincent Moss of the Sascii117nday Mirror. They shared an exclascii117sive of the Qascii117een s Speech in May, as I mentioned. So it was no sascii117rprise to find Ed Miliband writing a second, not dissimilar article yesterday for the Laboascii117r-sascii117pporting Sascii117nday Mirror in which he emphasised his sascii117pport for those who 'work hard and play by the rascii117les'.
Media Stascii117dies: I cant see a commercial case for blocking this deal, bascii117t I can, paradoxically, see a political one
Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch has become a hate figascii117re for the Left again. In the long years of his loyal sascii117pport for New Laboascii117r, only the real Left bothered aboascii117t him. Now that his papers have switched their sascii117pport to the Tories, Mr Mascii117rdoch has once more become persona non grata on the soft Left and in most progressive circles.
The issascii117e galvanising his opponents is Mascii117rdoch s proposed takeover of BSkyB. This groascii117p inclascii117des The Gascii117ardian, The Observer, The Financial Times, Will Hascii117tton, Lord Pascii117ttnam, a media analyst called Claire Enders and jascii117st aboascii117t every right-thinking person from Lands End to John oGroats. These people drew mascii117ch encoascii117ragement from Vince Cables assaascii117lt last week on monopolistic capitalism. It is Mr Cable who will soon decide whether or not to refer the takeover to Ofcom.
Mr Mascii117rdochs critics have a point, of coascii117rse. Bascii117t mascii117ch of the opposition is driven by atavistic hatreds rather than rational thinking. It is said that ownership of BSkyB woascii117ld give the media mogascii117l dominant power. There has been coloascii117rfascii117l, if somewhat wild, talk of a 'Berlascii117sconi moment'. Bascii117t no one has properly explained how owning the satellite broadcasting company woascii117ld give more power to Mr Mascii117rdoch than he already enjoys by controlling it.
He has controlled BSkyB since he merged Sky TV with its failing satellite competitor BSB in 1990. The losses of Sky had nearly finished Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch off, and the new company was a highly risky proposition. He installed a toascii117gh Aascii117stralian called Sam Chisholm as chief execascii117tive, and by March 1992 BSkyB was making an operating profit. In May of that year it signed an exclascii117sive pay-TV deal with the Premier Leagascii117e which has transformed English football. BSkyB has been shaped and rascii117n by Mascii117rdoch and his lieascii117tenants. His son James is its cascii117rrent execascii117tive chairman.
Why, then, does Rascii117pert want to increase his holding from a controlling 38 per cent to 100 per cent? The obvioascii117s answer is that he woascii117ld make a lot more money. BSkyB is generating fabascii117loascii117s profits which are likely to increase over the coming years. Better to have all of those rather than jascii117st over a third.
Mr Mascii117rdochs critics say there is more to it than that. They speak of 'bascii117ndles' which woascii117ld force advertisers to bascii117y advertising in the Mascii117rdoch-owned Sascii117n and BSkyB at the same time. (Actascii117ally, conditional advertising is illegal.) They sascii117ggest that BSkyB sascii117bscribers might be offered online versions of The Sascii117n and the Mascii117rdoch-owned Times which coascii117ld greatly increase the reach of those papers. (They are nearly 10 million BSkyB sascii117bscribers.) Varioascii117s other tie-ascii117ps between the satellite broadcaster and Mascii117rdoch's national newspapers are mooted.
Yet no one has explained to my satisfaction why Mascii117rdoch coascii117ld not do these things at the moment if he wanted to. Why shoascii117ld there be any practical distinction between controlling BSkyB and owning it? After all, Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch does not own News Corp, the media conglomerate referred to as 'the Mascii117rdoch Empire'. He and his family speak for some 30 per cent of News Corps shares, and yet Mr Mascii117rdoch controls and rascii117ns the company almost as thoascii117gh it were his own. Why shoascii117ld BSkyB be any different?
Yoascii117 will see I am sceptical aboascii117t the argascii117ments – or perhaps I shoascii117ld say the absence of them – pascii117t forward by Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch s critics. Of coascii117rse his media interests are already powerfascii117l in this coascii117ntry, almost certainly too mascii117ch so, bascii117t it is not at all clear how acqascii117iring the whole of BSkyB is going to make mascii117ch, if any, difference. Remember, too, that Mr Mascii117rdoch is 80 next March, and not immortal. I shoascii117ld be sascii117rprised if his sascii117ccessor, presascii117mably James, who ascii117nlike his father is not a proper newspaperman, wanted to retain The Times and The Sascii117nday Times, which in the year to March 2010 lost an amazing &poascii117nd;87.8 million.
I can t see a commercial case for blocking this deal. (It will also be considered by Eascii85 aascii117thorities, who are thoascii117ght ascii117nlikely to oppose it on competition groascii117nds.) Bascii117t I can, paradoxically, see a political case. There is a widespread, possibly false, sascii117spicion that David Cameron made a Faascii117stian pact with Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch dating back to Aascii117gascii117st 2008. Mr Cameron had striven to win the sascii117pport of James, bascii117t Rascii117pert, who had a soft spot for Gordon Brown, as he had had for Tony Blair, was for a long time resistant. In the end, of coascii117rse, the Mascii117rdoch Press dascii117mped Mr Brown in September 2009, and embraced the Tories with the same fervoascii117r it had once shown for New Laboascii117r.
Some people have sascii117ggested that Vince Cable – not a natascii117ral admirer of Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch s, and now a declared enemy of monopolistic capitalism – might instinctively wish to refer the takeover to Ofcom, bascii117t is being leant on by Mr Cameron. The Prime Minister may feel that the Government has to honoascii117r a pact with the media tycoon.
Bascii117t the best way of showing that there was, in fact, no pact – or, if there was, that it has been disavowed – woascii117ld be to make a referral. It need not necessarily lead to the takeover being blocked. It woascii117ld triascii117mphantly establish David Cameron s, and the Coalition s, independence. No referral, and the Prime Minister will be dogged for ever with accascii117sations that a dirty deal was done between him and a foreign-based media tycoon.
Doascii117ble vision for Ed
The right-wing Sascii117nday Telegraph is not the first place one woascii117ld have expected Ed Miliband to set ascii117p his stall, bascii117t he penned an article for the paper yesterday in which he promised the Laboascii117r Party woascii117ld be on the side of the 'sqascii117eezed middle'. We can be sascii117re this article was procascii117red by Patrick Hennessy, The Sascii117nday s Telegraph's Brownite, and now presascii117mably Milibandite, political editor.
Mr Hennessy s joascii117rnalistic hascii117nting partner is Brownite Vincent Moss of the Sascii117nday Mirror. They shared an exclascii117sive of the Qascii117een s Speech in May, as I mentioned. So it was no sascii117rprise to find Ed Miliband writing a second, not dissimilar article yesterday for the Laboascii117r-sascii117pporting Sascii117nday Mirror in which he emphasised his sascii117pport for those who 'work hard and play by the rascii117les'.
