There’s a storm coming over the Fox horizon as Ofcom’s 40 days of scrutinising the Murdoch takeover of 100% of Sky tick away. Most observers (me included) thought when the deal was announced that it would breeze through any regulatory scrutiny, fundamental news plurality issues having changed in a digital world. The EU thinks so. But Ofcom’s “fit and proper” governance assessments may prove a higher hurdle.
Last summer, Roger Ailes, the spin wizard who created Fox News, was finally pushed from his perch. Exit, pursued by escalating allegations of sexual advances and grotesque behaviour. Last week, Bill O’Reilly, presiding presence on primetime Fox, found himself deep in the same murky pond.
His bosses, the New York Times discovered, had paid a total of $13m to five women making harassment claims against him, just as they were awarding O’Reilly a new $20m-a-year long-term contract. Big news as big advertisers, from Mercedes Benz to Hyundai, pulled their bookings from O’Reilly’s hours. Big embarrassment as the only booming voice speaking up for his Fox friend was Donald J Trump.
There are surely matters of Ofcom concern here: the chairman of Fox News is currently a certain Mr Rupert Murdoch, just as the selfsame Rupe is executive chairman of 21st Century Fox, which owns the whole shooting match. Son James is boss of 21st Century Fox (and chairman of Sky).
Question: is there any trace of fit and proper governance here? Is there a manifest will to enforce and maintain standards of managerial conduct – or just a sloppy inability to act toughly against errant chums or money makers?
Sky hasn’t had problems like these, to be sure. But then Sky isn’t a wholly-owned Murdoch enterprise yet. It has degrees of independence and transparency on its side. Will Ofcom welcome such fit and proper influence – and how will it propose to retain it?
