Read all about it: why Rupert Murdoch
might want to sell the Times
STEPHEN GLOVER
The government's consultation paper on media ownership, unveiled on Monday, will have pleased the boys at Granada and Carlton. The two companies, which already control most of ITV, have long wanted to merge. But they have been held back by restrictions preventing a single company from commanding more than 15 per cent of the total television audience. Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, announced on Monday that these restrictions will be lifted, paving the way for a full merger. If it happens, I don't suppose it will make a blind bit of difference to any of us: ITV will continue to churn out the same demented rubbish. But the boys at Granada–Carlton will have bigger cars and fatter salaries, and be able to fancy themselves as international media moguls bestriding the narrow world.
Much more interesting to me is the position of Rupert Murdoch, whom the consultation paper, perhaps intentionally, has left suspended in mid-air. Mr Murdoch has coveted owning a so-called terrestrial independent television station to add to the satellite channel — BSkyB — in which he already has a controlling share. He has set his eye on Channel 5, and perhaps one of the ITV companies. But he has so far been frustrated by two rules. One is that under existing legislation he cannot, as a foreign national with a controlling interest in BSkyB, be permitted to own a British terrestrial channel. The other is that no company or individual with more than 20 per cent of the newspaper market (Murdoch owns some 35 per cent) is allowed to own more than 20 per cent of a terrestrial television broadcaster.
Mr Murdoch had hoped that these rules might be relaxed. On the first rule — preventing a non-European Union national from owning a British broadcaster — the government has not budged. Its reasoning is lack of reciprocity: if media companies cannot buy their way into foreign countries, foreign companies should not be allowed to buy their way in here. On the second rule — no newspaper group with more than 20 per cent of the market can have more than 20 per cent of a terrestrial television broadcaster — there is more comfort for Mr Murdoch. The government is willing to give ground. One idea is that no media group would be allowed to control more than 30 per cent of the audience in any two media markets.
I'm sorry this is all a bit involved, but
we're nearly there. There are those who think that Mr Murdoch might be able to jump over the first rule by arguing that as his interest in BSkyB is only 36 or 37 per cent he does not, in fact, control the company; ergo BSkyB is not controlled by a foreign national and should be allowed to bid for a terrestrial channel. Rule two would then be all that held him back — and that is going to be relaxed. But the scope of his newspaper holdings might disqualify him, as he would still command more than 30 per cent of the newspaper market. One quick and easy way of almost fixing this would be to flog the Times. Bing& The Australian journalist Neil Chenoweth, who recently published an excellent biography of Mr Murdoch, has floated the idea in Guardian Unlimited that Mr Murdoch might sell the loss-making Times. He even suggests that Tony O'Reilly, proprietor of the Independent, could be a buyer. Actually Mr Chenoweth produces precious little evidence, if any. But one can see, following this consultation paper, how a sale might come about. Speaking personally, I would gladly trade Mr Murdoch Channel 5, Granada, Carlton and anything else he wanted in return for the Times, if that once great newspaper could find security in more loving hands than his. However, competition law would probably prevent such a wholesale takeover. But he might be allowed Channel 5. and a little of something else. Would any man alive swap the Times for Channel 5? Rupert Murdoch might.
Which country is the most dangerous for journalists at the moment? Afghanistan, where eight have so far died. But Zimbabwe looks as though it isn't going to be a picnic either. At the end of last week President Mugabe's government accused six foreign journalists of 'assisting terrorists'. This could theoretically make them liable for the death penalty under legislation tabled a few days earlier.
Meanwhile Mugabe continues his onslaught against the Daily News, the independent Zimbabwean newspaper I have often written about. Readers will recall that last January government saboteurs destroyed its presses. Since then its executives have been regularly harried and its vendors beaten up. Three weeks ago its
editor, Geoffrey Nyarota, was arrested on a bogus charge and released on bail. But the paper has not lost a single day of publication. Using contract printers — it is still trying to acquire a new press — it produces about 70,000 copies daily, all of which are sold.
Although Mugabe has been a tyrant for many years, until very recently it was quite easy for journalists to operate in Zimbabwe. There was a tradition of a relatively free press. Foreign journalists could more or less come and go at will, and write whatever they liked. Local journalists were subject to closer scrutiny, and were occasionally arrested. On one infamous occasion two were tortured. But even before the launch of the Daily News, there were independent newspapers, such as the Financial Gazette and the Independent, that were fiercely critical of Mugabe and his government.
All that has changed now. As the presidential election approaches, Mugabe will undoubtedly try again to close down the Daily News. He may well also move against journalists working for foreign publications. The ones most recently threatened are: Jan Raath of the Times, a veteran correspondent; Peta Thornycroft of the Daily Telegraph, whose predecessor was forced to leave Zimbabwe four months ago; Andrew Meldrum of the Guardian, who has reported from Harare for 18 years; Basildon Peta, a black Zimbabwean who has produced sparky and illuminating pieces for the Independent; Angus Shaw, a white Zimbabwean, who works for Associated Press; and Dumisani Muleya, a black South African, of the Johannesburg-based Business Day.
These journalists are as good a bunch as you will find in any foreign capital. And now, naturally, they are afraid. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has threatened diplomatic action in an unusually tough statement. Our man in Harare has protested. There is general talk of 'smart sanctions' targeted against Mugabe and his coterie that would freeze their foreign bank accounts and restrict their foreign travel. Such measures are long overdue, and might restrain Mugabe's wilder excesses on the basis that he will not want to incur even stiffer penalties. Even so, for as long as he remains in power, no journalist, foreign or local, is going to feel safe in Zimbabwe.
Previous page
