This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/29/the-guardian-view-on-murdochs-sky-takeover-not-a-done-deal
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on Murdoch’s Sky takeover: not a done deal | The Guardian view on Murdoch’s Sky takeover: not a done deal |
| (11 days later) | |
| Did a smile steal across the face of Rupert Murdoch? It probably did so when the culture secretary Karen Bradley stood up in parliament on Thursday. While the billionaire was told his bid to buy the 61% of Sky that he does not own could give him too much power over the news and the political process in Britain, Mr Murdoch would have also heard that he and his family were “fit and proper” holders of a UK broadcast licence. | Did a smile steal across the face of Rupert Murdoch? It probably did so when the culture secretary Karen Bradley stood up in parliament on Thursday. While the billionaire was told his bid to buy the 61% of Sky that he does not own could give him too much power over the news and the political process in Britain, Mr Murdoch would have also heard that he and his family were “fit and proper” holders of a UK broadcast licence. |
| The culture of law-breaking unearthed at the turn of the decade in Murdoch newspapers over phone hacking saw executives jailed, multimillion-pound payouts to victims and grovelling public apologies from the media mogul. This scuppered the last attempt to control Sky. But last December Mr Murdoch returned with a £11.7bn bid for the pan-European Sky via his Fox television division. This time a slew of sexual harassment cases, high-profile firings and multimillion-dollar payouts at Fox News have not disqualified Mr Murdoch from controlling Sky, sans pesky shareholders. Ofcom displayed an admirable independence of thought in considering reams of evidence about whether the Murdochs passed a fitness “test”. However, the regulator seems gullible in accepting a prima facie case of innocence. | The culture of law-breaking unearthed at the turn of the decade in Murdoch newspapers over phone hacking saw executives jailed, multimillion-pound payouts to victims and grovelling public apologies from the media mogul. This scuppered the last attempt to control Sky. But last December Mr Murdoch returned with a £11.7bn bid for the pan-European Sky via his Fox television division. This time a slew of sexual harassment cases, high-profile firings and multimillion-dollar payouts at Fox News have not disqualified Mr Murdoch from controlling Sky, sans pesky shareholders. Ofcom displayed an admirable independence of thought in considering reams of evidence about whether the Murdochs passed a fitness “test”. However, the regulator seems gullible in accepting a prima facie case of innocence. |
| Mr Murdoch was told by then Fox News CEO Roger Ailes about a 2004 case alleging misconduct by presenter Bill O’Reilly. It was not until last year that a string of sexual harassment accusations saw Mr Ailes depart. A few months later, Mr O’Reilly left after similar allegations emerged, amid bad publicity and a fall in advertising. How can it be right that a shake-up in corporate governance across the Murdoch empire in 2012, precipitated by James Murdoch’s incompetent and ill-judged conduct over phone hacking, absolve the same James Murdoch when he was in charge of Fox? Senior executives at Fox News remain named in law suits. Racism allegations have surfaced. Ongoing phone-hacking cases may see James Murdoch in court. All offer Ofcom future chances to revisit its judgment about whether the Murdochs are fit to run TV stations. Mrs Bradley should refer the deal to the competition regulator. | Mr Murdoch was told by then Fox News CEO Roger Ailes about a 2004 case alleging misconduct by presenter Bill O’Reilly. It was not until last year that a string of sexual harassment accusations saw Mr Ailes depart. A few months later, Mr O’Reilly left after similar allegations emerged, amid bad publicity and a fall in advertising. How can it be right that a shake-up in corporate governance across the Murdoch empire in 2012, precipitated by James Murdoch’s incompetent and ill-judged conduct over phone hacking, absolve the same James Murdoch when he was in charge of Fox? Senior executives at Fox News remain named in law suits. Racism allegations have surfaced. Ongoing phone-hacking cases may see James Murdoch in court. All offer Ofcom future chances to revisit its judgment about whether the Murdochs are fit to run TV stations. Mrs Bradley should refer the deal to the competition regulator. |
| Past Murdoch editorial guarantees have been worthless. It’s not just Sky News that should be considered. Fox-Sky would be a Goliath seeking to trap users within its digital walls. Media plurality needs addressing, but without recognising a monopoly in the making, equivocal remedies will make a bad situation worse. | Past Murdoch editorial guarantees have been worthless. It’s not just Sky News that should be considered. Fox-Sky would be a Goliath seeking to trap users within its digital walls. Media plurality needs addressing, but without recognising a monopoly in the making, equivocal remedies will make a bad situation worse. |
| Rupert Murdoch | Rupert Murdoch |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Sky plc | Sky plc |
| Fox | Fox |
| Television industry | Television industry |
| US television industry | US television industry |
| Fox News | Fox News |
| editorials | editorials |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |