The implications surrounding the UK’s ban on foreign government media ownership British Media’s Foreign Ownership Inconsistency
By: You-Yan Wang
Amid a tumultuous period for the governing Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, Parliament has moved swiftly on one issue: banning foreign ownership of British media. The ban came in response to Abu Dhabi-backed joint venture RedBird IMI’s proposed takeover of The Daily Telegraph, a leading British newspaper. This new law comes amid long-standing government policy allowing foreign political influence for the past two decades. In doing so, Parliament has exposed its hypocritical policy-making regarding foreign ownership of media.
RedBird IMI, the organization that planned to acquire The Telegraph, is a consortium between the American investment management firm RedBird Capital Partners and International Media Investments, a state-owned enterprise of the United Arab Emirates. Due to its bypass of a typical auction process, the potential acquisition by RedBird triggered alarm bells within the halls of Parliament. The deal was met with considerably strong opposition, especially from the governing Tories (Conservatives). Tina Stowell, a former Conservative leader in the House of Lords, brought forth legislation allowing Parliament to veto deals made by foreign governments to acquire British media organizations. The amendment had the support of over a hundred members, though lawmakers ultimately withdrew it.
The backlash is due to the significance of The Telegraph as a Conservative Party mouthpiece, with the paper colloquially known as the “Torygraph.” Control of a politically influential asset by a foreign government could be catastrophic for the ruling party, as the potential to sway voters or damage the party’s reputation could spell disaster for the already floundering Tories. Opponents of the RedBird IMI deal have argued that foreign governments should not own media assets, citing the potential for editorial interference and media censorship. The deal, and others like it, present a threat to free press. The ban will allow Parliament to block any media merger adjudged by the Competition and Markets Authority, the UK’s principal market regulator, to be complicit with foreign ownership. As the Conservatives rationalize, the bill aims to restrict Gulf influence in the UK and prevent the accumulation of soft power over policies and the people of Britain.
However, previous Gulf ownership of other institutions reveals the media ownership ban to be hypocritical. The concerns about foreign governments’ media ownership stem from the capacity to manipulate the ideas of voters and the general public. However, foreign involvement in many places, like football clubs and academic institutions, has already altered public opinion. Sportswashing is a prime example of the effect of such foreign influences. With the Saudi Public Investment Fund’s 2021 acquisition of Newcastle United, for example, many of its supporters have overlooked the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who bought Manchester City Football Club in 2008 as well as a 75% stake in RedBird IMI, oversaw a purge of journalists and editors at the Emirati newspaper Al Roeya because they reported on Emirati reactions to rising energy prices. But, Manchester City’s Champions League win is the first thing that comes to mind when most hear about the UAE. The impact, though, goes beyond just sportswashing projects. Think tanks, public policy institutions with political influence, like former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Institute for Global Change, have faced scrutiny due to their deepening financial connections with foreign governments. By allowing this cultural and economic influence on many of the UK’s institutions, foreign governments accumulate the kind of soft power that measures like the foreign government media ownership ban precisely claim to prevent.
If Parliament’s true goal is to maintain nationalistic integrity, then large money investments elsewhere, apart from just media acquisitions, must be addressed as well. Consistency is necessary in Britain’s policy-making.
