The Newsroom

News International and BSkyB

The future. (July 2011)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
TH
Thomas
Lee M posted:
I think it is a possibility (albeit very remote) that the Government may prod Ofcom to declare the Murdochs not to be fit and proper holders of a broadcasting licence, which would mean in order for Sky to continue broadcasting, News Corp would have to divest either all of their shares, or enough of them so that they no longer hold a significant influence over the management of the company.


This being the same government that was pushing for the Sky takeover to go ahead, led by a Prime Minister who had Christmas dinner with the Brooks family? Not to mention the way the BBC has been handled by Hunt & Co.

The suggested outcome at the moment is that Ofcom might force News Corp to reduce its percentage of shares, in a similar way to how it made Sky sell its shares in ITV a few years ago. The effect being, it will lose influence, lose more of its UK business and would struggle to force through its own agenda on the board.
TH
Thinker
A bit perplexing how people on this forum continue to blame the state of ITV today on specific people and organisations. Even if Thatcher had left the IBA in place, Murdoch had stayed in Australia, Carlton had never gotten into the TV business, Thames had remained on London weekday and Granada hadn't been the one that ended up buying all the others, ITV wouldn't be much different today. Some shares would be in different hands, and some events would perhaps have occurred at a later time, but the downscaling and consolidation of ITV was inevitable.
DV
DVB Cornwall
Seems Labour has cast it's die,

.@harrietharman tells @afneil that she believes that Murdoch and BSkyB are not 'fit and proper' to hold a broadcasting licence #bbcsp

from ……..

SUNDAY_POLITICS ON TWITTER
29-Apr-2012 @ 12:48
JP
jpeg987
DVB Cornwall posted:
Seems Labour has cast it's die,

.@harrietharman tells @afneil that she believes that Murdoch and BSkyB are not 'fit and proper' to hold a broadcasting licence #bbcsp

from ……..

SUNDAY_POLITICS ON TWITTER
29-Apr-2012 @ 12:48


I'm a bit perplexed by this to be honest. Putting Labour's desperate attempts to jump on the bandwagon aside, presumably Ofcom are going to have to prove there is some sort of substantial link between Sky and News International because, as far as I'm aware, no one at News Corporation has been found guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. Although I guess James Murdoch may find himself on shaky ground when the MP's Report is published on Tuesday.

Surely they will have to have a cast iron case if they decide to make News Corp withdraw their shareholding and if they were to reach that conclusion I imagine it would be bitterly contested.
TH
Thomas
You have to ask do Ofcom have the balls to do it. I imagine going up against News Corp alone is hard enough, let alone when there's a pro-Murdoch government in power.
GR
gregmc
Thomas posted:
You have to ask do Ofcom have the balls to do it. I imagine going up against News Corp alone is hard enough, let alone when there's a pro-Murdoch government in power.


There's been a pro-murdoch government in power for at least 20 years! Razz
IS
Inspector Sands
Thomas posted:
You have to ask do Ofcom have the balls to do it. I imagine going up against News Corp alone is hard enough, let alone when there's a pro-Murdoch government in power.

Are they a pro-Murdoch government any more? They're hardly on good terms any more and Murdoch's spell over this or any future government is very much broken. In this climate they wouldn't want to be seen to give any favouritism to News Corp even if they wanted to
CI
cityprod
Inspector Sands posted:
Thomas posted:
You have to ask do Ofcom have the balls to do it. I imagine going up against News Corp alone is hard enough, let alone when there's a pro-Murdoch government in power.

Are they a pro-Murdoch government any more? They're hardly on good terms any more and Murdoch's spell over this or any future government is very much broken. In this climate they wouldn't want to be seen to give any favouritism to News Corp even if they wanted to


I have to say that they definitely are not on good terms with NewsCorp or Sky and I wonder what this will do with relations between the governemtn and the other media organisations. I cannot see a lot of positive developments coming out of this, even though there will be some positives, but I do wonder if they won't be outweighed by the negatives.
BR
Brekkie
Thomas posted:
You have to ask do Ofcom have the balls to do it. I imagine going up against News Corp alone is hard enough, let alone when there's a pro-Murdoch government in power.

I doubt OFCOM would have the resources for the inevitable legal challenge which would follow such a decision.

As anti-Murdoch as I am, I don't think it would be in the interests of British television at all to now declare BSkyB not "fit and proper" to broadcast here.
MD
mdtauk
Brekkie posted:
Thomas posted:
You have to ask do Ofcom have the balls to do it. I imagine going up against News Corp alone is hard enough, let alone when there's a pro-Murdoch government in power.

I doubt OFCOM would have the resources for the inevitable legal challenge which would follow such a decision.

As anti-Murdoch as I am, I don't think it would be in the interests of British television at all to now declare BSkyB not "fit and proper" to broadcast here.


Well technically it would be that Rupert Murdoch and his companies are not fit and proper to own broadcast licenses, not that BSkyB are not fit to broadcast. Murdoch could remove himself and his companies from majority shareholders and retain the channels.
RD
rdd Founding member
mdtauk posted:

Speaking more specifically about the current situation. I think the Satellite network and delivery should be handed over to the BBC, and as part of the license fee (with a small increase) every home become satellite enabled. Then the BBC would be free to break their programming into specialised channels so the audiences can have a place to go for the type of programmes that they want, making it easier to avoid "reality tv shows" and easier to find and promote more highbrow content.

...
BSkyB (whoever it ends up being run by) deserves special preference because they built the network, similar to how BT has overall control of the telecom network.


Sky neither built nor own the satellites it broadcasts on. They were built by various (largely American) firms and are owned by SES Astra who are based in Luxembourg. Nor are they used exclusively by BSkyB. The British Government really wouldn't in a position to hand it over to the BBC.

Inspector Sands posted:

Sky's not going anywhere, in fact the bigger threat to it is the possibility of it losing some or all of it's Premier League rights in the next few months.... unlikely going by past form but it could happen and I wonder if the News Corp connection is a hinderence to that now?
;


I don't think the Premier League cares much about the politics of it (if they did, Al-Jazeera might not be in the running either). All the Premier League really cares about is how much money they can make out of the sale of the rights. If Sky comes up with a big enough cheque they'll retain at least some of the rights.
IS
Inspector Sands
rdd posted:
I don't think the Premier League cares much about the politics of it (if they did, Al-Jazeera might not be in the running either). All the Premier League really cares about is how much money they can make out of the sale of the rights. If Sky comes up with a big enough cheque they'll retain at least some of the rights.

It's rumoured that last time round there was some shenanigans going on - allegedly off the record phone calls after the bids were in and the retroactive changing of amounts - to make sure that Sky got a certain number of rights packages.

If Sky is on the ropes next time round would those involved be as keen help Sky out again?

Newer posts