|
05 Nov 10 - 05:26 AM (#3024097) Subject: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: Richard Bridge The Government has asked media regulator to assess the affect on media plurality of the proposal from Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation that it take BSkyB private. The newspaper publisher already owns 39.1% of the satellite broadcasting company and has made an £8.2 billion offer for the remaining shares of the company, which are listed on the public markets. BSkyB's independent directors have rejected the 675p per share offer and say they will only consider an offer of 800p per share or more. They have agreed to allow the regulatory process to continue, though, and will negotiate later on price. Secretary of State for Business Vince Cable has issued an intervention in the deal under the Enterprise Act. He has asked Ofcom to assess whether the deal will create too great a concentration of media ownership in the UK. "The Secretary of State believes that it is or may be the case that the public interest consideration specified in section 58 of the Act concerned with the sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises is relevant to a consideration of the merger situation," said the order. Ofcom will only consider the impact of the proposed merger on media ownership. If the matter is referred to the Competition Commission it, too, could only consider the media ownership issues, a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said. It said that only the European Commission can consider the broader competition aspects. Ofcom will report on the impact on media ownership by 31 December. The European Commission will be responsible for any general competition investigation because of the size of the proposed deal and will report by 8 December, BIS said. "On the basis of the information and submissions available to me, I have decided that it is appropriate to issue an intervention notice in this particular case," said Cable. "The independent experts at Ofcom will now investigate and report to me on the media plurality issues that may arise from this proposed acquisition." News Corp owns The Times, The Sunday Times, the Sun and the News Of The World newspapers. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 05:49 AM (#3024111) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie A bit of a catch 22. I don't want one external voice, accountable to nobody, having such huge control of the media. That's how the italians ended up with old Silvio (!) On the other hand, some NI shares were part of a portfolio I bought a few years ago. The part of me that doesn't want malignant influence in the press agrees with the part of me that in reality is not happy owning shares in this empire. That said, if they get the rest of BSkyB for somewhat less than the brave 800p, my shares will go up anyway, allowing me to sell them on at a nice profit. If, however, Vince Cable decides otherwise, perhaps I should sell now, as NI shares will dip for a while if they have to walk away with their tails between their legs. Interesting times. Didn't know you were an investor yourself Richard? Must have a glass of bubbly together at the next AGM. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 06:41 AM (#3024148) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: Richard Bridge I have advised on media plurality, and politically steadfastly opposed every deregulation and dilution of cross-media-ownership rules, since about 1980. I had a finger in the original BSB TV franchise, and the supplier agreements between the terrestrial TV companies and Sky. While I would have been quite happy investing in Anglia TV (John Woolf was not a bad old stick) HTV would likely have stuck in my craw, they had some real right wing loonies at the top (although some of their documentaries on Welsh poverty were praiseworthy). Invest in BskyB? My conscience would scream nearly as loudly as if it were Cape (the asbestos company) or RTZ or de Beers. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 07:10 AM (#3024162) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Ah, but I was uncomfortable, which is about as far as I get... Anyway, it wasn't BSkyB, it was NI, and I was lumbered with them in a portfolio rather than actually purposely investing there. That said, I stopped using a broker once because he went against the "moral" clause I put in and bought into BAT with my money. I sold at a slight loss, costing me a couple of hundred pounds, as I too have my limits, believe it or believe it not.... Moral investment can sound good, but even if you just stick your wad in the Co-op, the term "ethical" can mean different things to different people. I am interested (really) in how to advise on media plurality and put a political slant on it. Surely the media gold standard is about ensuring operation without politicalisation? Putting your politics into your advice is in essence no different to the Dirty Digger saying which party his empire is going to back in the next election? |
|
05 Nov 10 - 07:47 AM (#3024179) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: Richard Bridge No. That is not the gold standard (although I would prefer the long-gone standards of the Times in separating news and comment). The principle (Thatcher started the rot) was to prevent the concentration of excessive media power within the same control, because it permitted exactly the corrupt use of influence that Berlusconi and Murdoch demonstrate. With enough TV/wireless/print media sources in hands that are independent of each other the public have access to a sufficient range of views that such influence is sufficiently improbable. No one medium needs to be apolitical if there are sufficient sources to negate the influence of any given medium - that is te possible virtue of the internet, but alas the amount of shit up there makes it almost impossible to find the gold or indeed to distinguish that gold from iron pyrites. It's the same sort of principle as the old "no product placement" code which was also less corrupt than what we have now. For my part I am (genuinely) puzzled that you sought to restrict a broker to ethical investments when the bulk of what you post appears to align you with the money-changers in the temple. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 07:54 AM (#3024186) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: McGrath of Harlow With the emphasis on "faint"... The simplest system would be to make it illegal for a company or individual to own more than a single media unit - newspaper or a television channel - at a time, the same way it's illegal to have more than one husband or wife. That won't happen of course. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 08:13 AM (#3024196) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: John MacKenzie I see we managed to drag Maggie into this one too :) Ah Richard, you are so predictable, but it keeps me amused. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 08:26 AM (#3024200) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Of course I align myself with the money lenders in the temple. I certainly don't let superstition guide me... if I thought somebody would ruin my money lending bench, I would get a ladder and nail the bugger up myself. Ethical investing is not, believe it or not, an oxymoron. Every gallon of petrol you put in your Swedish boilers helps feed the largest multinationals of them all. If you thought the Dirty Digger influenced society, he is small beer compared to the petrochemical guys.... |
|
05 Nov 10 - 08:29 AM (#3024203) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: bubblyrat In the same way that you can only be Captain of one sailing-ship at a time ; were you to try to be Captain of two,it would be Brigamy. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 09:22 AM (#3024239) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: John MacKenzie Brigham Young was into brighamy, and more. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 09:35 AM (#3024247) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: Richard Bridge Ah no - the Volvos are actually very low emissions (I have the printouts to prove it) and I'm a low mileage driver so the MPG is barely relevant, and the refusal to buy new cars saves the energy cost of manufacture (or scrappage) and indeed reduces capital movement out of the country. I do not follow your train of thought. Share trading is a zero-sum game. Every pound you put in your pocket by such trading comes out of someone else's. There is so little long-term investment thought in the UK that most investment is fast-buck stuff that gets its payoff by destroying jobs and industries (like MG Rover - assets worth millions went primarily into the consortium's pockets and some into silly ideas like carbon-fibre-bodied supercars that could not compete with the big names, so that just as the product was getting "right" - the Rover 75 series - the bean counters shut the place down). You now expressly align yourself with the money lenders in the temple yet say that you have tried to restrict your brokers to ethical investment. It is inconsistent. |
|
05 Nov 10 - 09:37 AM (#3024250) Subject: RE: BS: A faint hope for UK media plurality? From: Richard Bridge PS, McGrath, you are of course right. Every chance since the 80s that a government has had it has undermined media neutrality in the hope of getting press and media support. Devil, spoon, etc. |