Rupert Murdoch’s Public Interest Test Will Face Further Ofcom Scrutiny
By Gavin Mackintosh
Rupert Murdoch’s proposed media deal, and the associated public interest test will face further scrutiny after various arguments from all quarters in relation to ofcom’s assessment of the Murdoch’s and the bid of 21st century Fox’s £11.7bn take over of Sky.
In the last week, the eye of media.com has heard that every member of staff at news UK received a £10 voucher to spend in and around borough market to boost spending following the London Borough terrorist attack in June. The vouchers have been donated to Dow Jones and Harper Collins employees, amounting to about £30,000. A Dow Jones employee told the eye of media.com that the vouchers were to ”offset the loss of revenues in the 11 days when traders lost stock due to the police investigation into the terrorist attack”. The gesture from Rupert Murdoch’s news Uk is positive and commendable, whilst Ofcom continues its assessment of Murdoch’s grand media expansive aspirations
For the most part, ofcom has presented an objective assessment of the issues creating concern in relation to the goals and ambitions of Fox News and those of the very influential Murdoch family. The failings of Murdoch’s Corporation that included phone hacking and sexual and racial allegations , have been criticised by ofcom . However, the regulator has still left the door open for a deal to be struck, describing Murdoch’s Corporation as ”fit” and ”proper” to hold a broadcasting license.
However, ofcom’s comments that civil litigation against The Sun will be included in its ongoing assessment of the ”fit and proper” test means the deal is under further scrutiny. Ofcom said:
“Disclosure is still ongoing in civil litigation against [The Sun] and if this throws up new evidence, we will consider it as part of our ongoing duty to assess fitness and properness.”
LABOUR POLITICIANS
Labour politicians have always been against a deal with the Murdock family, and have urged ministers “not to do a grubby deal with the Murdochs” in order to push through 21st Century Fox’s £11.7bn takeover of Sky.
The strong objections of Mp’s come after the culture secretary told the Commons on Thursday that she was “minded” to accept the regulator’s inquiry was required because the Murdoch family would have “material influence” as a result of buying Sky. However, the allowance for negotiations in order to fully assess all the issues at hand means there is more time for the Murdoch’s to present a convincing case, and equally for their doubters to effectively obstruct their plans. Rupert Murdoch and his two sons now have exactly two weeks to offer concessions to Bradley to prevent any further reference for assessment.
DOMINANCE
Left to their devices, The Murdoch’s would dominate the media landscape, with only the BBC and ITN having a larger reach than their media empire, ofcom believe. They would have greater influence across the platforms of television, radio, newspapers and online. Fox already owns 39% of Sky. Fox had tried to argue that its media presence has been diluted by the plurality of media outlets arising from the rise of digital rivals, such as news distributors Google and Facebook and new outlets, such as Vice, BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post. Ofcom did not accept that argument. Ofcom insisted that Murdoch’s news media does not operate on a level playing field with its rivals, even on the platform of digital media.Bradley told MPs that the warning by Ofcom that media plurality would be reduced was “unambiguous” and “persuasive”. In other word’s, the estimation or calculation that Murdoch businesses would have the third largest total reach of any news provider, speaks for itself.
Ofcom said: “Our analysis suggests that Sky News and The Sun may receive a disproportionate amount of consumption through intermediaries, relative to their reach and share of reference” . “This analysis is supported by data from Sky and News Corp, which show high levels of consumption of their content through third-party platforms, for example Facebook Instant Articles or Snapchat.”
FIT
A conclusion made by Ofcom Fox would have no complaints about was that they were “fit and proper” owners of Sky’s UK broadcasting licence. The hacking at Murdoch’s defunct News of The World Corporation and allegations of sexual and racial harassment constituted significant corporate failure at the Murdochs companies, according to ofcom, but was not enough to deprive them of the right to hold a broadcasting licence.
However, ofcom said it was “troubled” by the way Fox responded to the sexual misconduct and harassment allegations made against Fox News staff. Fox had shamefully admitted at a meeting with ofcom that demands for sexual favours as well as salacious talk were “regular dirty oldman talk”.
A response to which ofcom said : “we found the language used by Fox to describe some of its employees’ misconduct to us tended to downplay the harm caused and diminish the victims,” said Ofcom. “Whilst we accept that its comments may have been relevant to an explanation of the credibility of the claims, we consider that some of the comments were superfluous and unnecessarily pejorative for this purpose.”
Ofcom also said it was “troubled” by Fox’s handling of the case of the former Fox news presenter Bill O’Reilly- a television host of Fox’s highly rated show .
EVIDENCE
Ofcom’s conclusion that there was no “clear evidence” that senior executives at Fox were aware of sexual misconduct before 2016 has allowed them stay in this fight. If evidence were ever to surface to suggest the contrary, their credibility and integrity would be in shreds. Already, there are legitimate concerns in granting wealthy corporation more power, given the huge question mark against their professionalism and integrity, but this doesn’t mean they should be indefinitely penalised for their failings. It does mean they should be watched carefully, and their proposals should be very carefully considered.
Murdoch’s remaining newspapers are now part of a separate company, News Corp, but still under the powerful control of Murdoch. The right to the Murdoch family to have a right to a broadcasting license is not debatable. However, any extent to which the Murdoch’s wish to undermine the healthy competition that comes from media plurality should rightly be stopped or closely regulated.