Monday, 11 July 2011

Rupert Murdoch, master of surprise

A few months ago I ventured the opinion that it didn't really matter whether Rupert Murdoch's News International was allowed to take over the 60% of UK broadcaster BSkyB that didn't already own. (See posting of 3 March -- "BSkyB: who cares?"). Begging the Zeitgeist's pardon, I still think that way, for the most part. Most people probably thought Murdoch owned the whole shebang anyway, until they learned of his bid to take out the other shareholders. A takeover would mean that all the nice juicy cashflow from Sky would be available to Murdoch, but would it really make any difference to the degree of competition in UK media? Despite the arrival of the Murdoch empire over forty years ago, the UK retains one of the most viciously competitive media markets in the world, and that's not about to change.

Still, the Zeitgeist has turned virulently against Murdoch in the past week (though we haven't heard much from the 7 million or so people who actually read the News of the World before its demise). Ed Miliband is stridently against allowing the BSkyB deal to proceed, and Nick Clegg, sensing an opportunity to put a bit of distance between the LibDems and the Tories, wants Murdoch to do the "decent and sensible thing" by withdrawing the bid. (Word up, Nick: appeals to Murdoch's decency are likely to be met only with blank stares). David Cameron has suggested that his personal friend, Rebekah Brooks, should have been allowed to resign from her post as head of Murdoch's UK press operations.

With all this hot air blowing around, this week's Parliamentary debate and (non-binding) vote on the deal was set to be a corker, but now it's becoming clear that Murdoch has every intention of carrying the fight to his opponents. Last week's announcement of the closure of the News of the World was a shock to just about everyone, and was generally seen as a desperate sacrifice aimed at keeping the BSkyB deal alive.

However, that turns out not to be Murdoch's only surprise. Today it's been announced that his News Corp is amending the BSkyB bid. As a concession to those fearful of media concentration, News Corp had offered to sell the Sky News operation if it received the go-ahead for the takeover. That concession has now been withdrawn: if the deal proceeds, News Corp will keep Sky News.

This can only mean that there's another doozy of a surprise to come, because those competition considerations haven't gone away. Best guess: Murdoch must be on the point of selling The Times and Sunday Times. There have been rumours in the past about the money-losing titles being sold to the Daily Mail group. It may be that Murdoch now sees the future of the group in the UK in terms of broadcasting rather than the print media (though he would presumably retain The Sun). This would address the competition concerns, though it's debatable whether it would really reduce Murdoch's influence in the UK -- and it's even more debatable whether the public is well-served by seeing the venerable Times come under the control of the misanthropes who own the Daily Mail.

2 comments:

alrich said...

Maybe there is a more ethical future for the Times without annoying competition commission enquiries. A trust? A private company? A mutual? http://bit.ly/qktwp2

Jim said...

Thanks for the comment! Like most non-tabloid papers, The Times is a money-loser. Say what you will about Murdoch, but he has kept it going when others would have given up years ago. Given the identities of possible buyers (Daily Mail? Lebedev?), it's unlikely the paper would survive in its present form if it made its way into new hands.