BSkyB: James Murdoch's veiled threat to the UK looks desperate. It is hard to see how News Corporation could significantly move investment abroad if the government blocks the media conglomerate's bid to buy the 61 per cent of BSkyB it doesn't already own. The comments by the anticipated heir to the media empire at a conference in Barcelona suggest News Corp is worried.
Public sentiment has been building against the Murdoch clan's attempt to consolidate power since News Corp made a preliminary offer in June. The UK business secretary, Vince Cable, recently asked the communications regulator Ofcom to assess the impact of the deal on plurality in the media.
Yet urging politicians to weigh up the benefits of having a "world leader" in the digital television space centred in the UK versus a "prolonged plurality process" is a weak defence. Sky's UK operation is far stronger than its Italian or German arms. It would make little sense to move operations or innovation away from the 10 million-strong subscriber base it has fought to build in the country.
News Corp could conceivably threaten to stop subsidising its three UK national newspaper titles - including the Times and the Sun - which have, according to Enders Analysis, suffered a total operating loss of between £61 million and £87 million over the last two years. But that's hardly a threat. If Murdoch's newspapers had less money, they would probably over time have less power to influence UK politics.
Indeed, the Murdochs have more to worry about than the UK if the deal were blocked. It would be a big slap in the face for the family - especially Murdoch Jnr who is thought to have been driving the deal. Observers might start to question his strategic touch, given that he also was responsible for an abortive investment in ITV which lost BSkyB hundreds of millions of pounds.
What's more, the Murdochs' power over BSkyB wouldn't just return to the status quo if the deal was blocked. At present, they have huge influence over its operations. If they were told they couldn't control it, the independent directors would probably become more independent - as would the executives and journalists. The Murdochs' influence, in other words, would decline.
Murdoch Jnr's less than subtle threats don't merit much fear.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
