One of the main worries aboascii117t News Corporation s giant cross-media holdings is that it gives the company and its chief, Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch, too mascii117ch power.

In theory at least, it enables the company to ride roascii117ghshod over rivals. Not only that, if improperly ascii117sed, News Corp coascii117ld exercise ascii117ndascii117e pressascii117re across the whole media landscape.

These concerns have been aired recently since the company annoascii117nced its intention to obtain fascii117ll ownership of BSkyB.

And when I mentioned them to a News International execascii117tive, he waved them aside as so mascii117ch hypothetical, specascii117lative nonsense. There was no evidence, he said, of News Corp ever having soascii117ght to ascii117se its mascii117scle inappropriately.

So what are we to make of this statement a coascii117ple of days ago by a senior execascii117tive at News Corp's Aascii117stralian division, News Ltd?

According to Rebekah Devlin, its entertainment editor-at-large, the company is threatening to deny coverage to movies if the actors starring in them refascii117se to give interviews to News Corp oascii117tlets.

She said the different arms of News Corp are working together to 'pascii117sh back' against actors pascii117blicists who blocking media access to their clients.

Devlin told an advertising conference: 'They [actors] are very qascii117ickly becoming the most powerfascii117l people in the world. More and more actors have it in their contract that they do not want to do pascii117blicity for a film.

'So how are yoascii117 going to get access to the likes of Katherine Heigl if she is doing a film bascii117t refascii117sing to do interviews.'

She said 'ascii85ncle Rascii117pe' was involved in drawing ascii117p a strategy to deal with what she said was a 'big challenge' for media organisations.

The different divisions of News Corp had previoascii117sly tackled the issascii117e independently, bascii117t execascii117tives were now preparing to present a ascii117nited front.

'We are really getting together now to say, 'OK, if yoascii117 do not want the help of the Fox network then let ascii117s see how yoascii117r film goes. We are really starting to pascii117sh back.'

Pascii117sh back or pascii117sh down? This is jascii117st the sort of overriding concern aboascii117t News Corp s intentions that give force to the argascii117ments against the company acqascii117iring the 60.1% of BSkyB that it does not own.

As I readily concede, the deal is perfectly acceptable as a bascii117siness transaction. The objection is political, by which I mean it centres on the politics of the media.

It is all aboascii117t plascii117ralism. Any fascii117rther acqascii117isition by one of the largest media companies in the world - argascii117ably, in strictly media terms, the largest - has to be viewed in that light.

This kind of heavy-handed action illascii117strates jascii117st why we need to constrain any fascii117rther News Corp expansion.

It goes withoascii117t saying that Devlin s blatant advocacy of censorship was not referring to actors working on films made by News Corp s own movie stascii117dio, 20th Centascii117ry Fox.

Instead, it was a fascii117ll-frontal threat to Fox s Hollywood stascii117dio rivals - Sony, Paramoascii117nt, MGM and Disney.

Shoascii117ld this 'strategy' be adopted, News Corp will deny air time on Sky, Fox News and Foxtel and deny newspaper coverage in a raft of big-selling newspapers across the world - from The Times and The Sascii117n here, to America s Wall Street Joascii117rnal and the New York Post, and to Aascii117stralia s The Aascii117stralian and Sydney Daily Telegraph.

Soascii117rce: Gascii117ardian