The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

How impartial is Jeremy Hunt?

The decision over Murdoch’s BSkyB takeover passes to the Culture Secretary – who is on record praisi

By Samira Shackle Published 22 December 2010 12:24

Vince Cable has been stripped of all responsibility for media policy after it emerged yesterday that he told two undercover reporters that he had "declared war" on Rupert Murdoch.

The decision over Murdoch's £7.8bn bid to take over the 61 per cent of BSkyB not already owned by his NewsCorp will now pass to Jeremy Hunt, on the grounds that Cable cannot fulfil the quasi-judicial, decision-making role in the case after expressing a bias.

But is Jeremy Hunt really impartial? Here he is, talking to Broadcast magazine earlier in the year.

First, he is asked whether he would object to Sky News becoming a UK version of Fox News.

It is not going to happen. Sky News knows that audiences want it to remain an impartial news channel. It is not pushing to relax the impartiality requirement because it's very happy with it.

Second, and perhaps more pertinently, he is asked whether it would matter if Murdoch owned two TV news channels in the UK.

The important thing is not whether a particular owner owns another TV channel but to make sure you have a variety of owners with a variety of TV channels so that no one owner has a dominant position both commercially and politically.

Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV, which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day.

We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment.

Labour MPs have rightly raised questions over Hunt's suitability to judge the case. This matter should not be dropped: it hardly adheres to the spirit of impartiality to transfer the decision from one politician who has expressed an opinion, to another who has simply expressed the opposite opinion.

NewsCorp must be thanking the Telegraph and the BBC (which published Cable's comments) for an early Christmas present.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Jeremy Hunt Vince Cable Rupert Murdoch

More from Samira Shackle

View the discussion thread.

20 comments

Wed, 2010-12-22 18:15 — lusina

Hunt's sympathy towards Murdoch and Sky News is obvious. He can't be very impartial when taking the decision. However, I don't agree that it's a Tory plot. It's the Lib- Dems being foolish and playing into the Tories hands.

Thu, 2010-12-23 08:14 — skiptonman

After the watching Pilger`s documentary `The War We Don`t See` it seems incredulous that Murdoch is steamrollering ahead with his right wing agenda .. Hunt is obviously a Murdoch sychophant who believes fox news is a good thing ? what we need is Pilger tv news ..

Thu, 2010-12-23 08:18 — skiptonman

What a joke Murdoch even being considered, just look at fox news !
Pilger News could catch on ..

Thu, 2010-12-23 16:44 — Jake Ryan (not verified)

He hasn't expressed any opinion about the takeover, though. Cable did. Argument redundant.

And his point about Murdoch supporting the British media is a fair one. The man props up papers that have lost money for decades, and invests in TV where others wouldn't - see Premier League.

His politcal views are another matter, however.

Thu, 2010-12-23 17:09 — Bill Fraser (not verified)

No party politician is impartial in the true sense of the word, if they were they would have no allegiance to any political party...

If it is to be a political decision have a 'free' vote in parliament... otherwise hand the decision over to some 'impartial' body.

Fri, 2010-12-24 13:17 — Michael H (not verified)

Cant figure out Telegrpah's role in this.
Its either a spectacular own goal for a newspaper which didn't want any more Murdoch domination or there is something else going on..

Wed, 2010-12-22 12:38 — Matt (not verified)

Am I the only one who thinks it's blindingly obvious that this whole debacle was a Tory ploy to remove Cable and install a stooge who will rubber-stamp Murdoch's takeover?

Wed, 2010-12-22 12:41 — mitchy

Neither the spirit nor the letter frankly.

Wed, 2010-12-22 12:44 — Paul Smith (not verified)

Surely it is Vince Cable's ego and vanity which has gifted News Corp

Wed, 2010-12-22 12:49 — writeoff (not verified)

I don't think the Telegraph really thought that one through at all unless they've gamed Hunt too and have that up their sleeve. Some hope. I'm with James Naughtie.

Wed, 2010-12-22 12:59 — greg1011

No, you're not the only one. This was a sting straight out the the NOW text book

Wed, 2010-12-22 13:14 — swatantra

The DT have form on leaking ... MPs expenses. Who hasn't got a view on the wretched NewsCorp? If Hunt said it when in Oppo then he can still bring an open mind to the decision, but if he said it last month, probably not. But he'll probably delegate the decision to some obsure civil servant and pass it off as his own.

Wed, 2010-12-22 13:25 — Jim Smith (not verified)

How impartial is Jeremy Hunt?

How shallow is the marianas trench?

How cold is the sun?

Wed, 2010-12-22 13:30 — Rick (not verified)

Is the Torygraph going to destroy every government until it gets it's desired outcome, i.e. a one party far right state? Fuel to my belief that the media is COMPLETELY out of control in this country.

Wed, 2010-12-22 13:34 — Daniele1

The question is : do you have to find a politician who has NO opinion on this matter? or do you have to find a politician who hasn't EXPRESSED an opinion on the matter?
It seems ludicrous to me that only some one with no opinion can take a decision. Surely only a complete idiot wouldn't have an opinion about the complete takeover of British TV by this obscenely rich and powerful tycoon.
This is being highly hypocritical to pretend that any one with a view should have no right to decide. In fact it is downright absurd.
I find this article curiously irrelevant.
Instead of talking about who should take that decision we should be talking about the reasons why Murdoch shouldn't be allowed to proceed with the takeover. In fact I am amazed that he is even allowed to contemplate such a takeover. Don't we have monopolies commissions to stop this happening?
I am baffled.

Wed, 2010-12-22 13:37 — Daniele1

I WANT my politicians to have opinions and be partial.That's why I vote for some and not for others.If they have no opinions, what are they doing taking decisions for the country?
Why is everybody going on about impartiality in this matter??

Wed, 2010-12-22 14:26 — Robert (not verified)

At least the issue will stay out in the open now.

Wed, 2010-12-22 14:31 — Jamie1

@Daniele

I completely agree; Cable's opinion is in the benefit of the media in this country, but it would no doubt further politicise the gutter press in favour of the Tories. Jeremy Hunt is a terrible, yet fully expected, candidate. The Lib Dems need to defect to Labour or resign, soon.

Thu, 2010-12-30 01:04 — David Velasquez (not verified)

Do you really want Murdoch's style of right wing partisanship dominating and destroying british journalism as it has in the US?
If you don't think he will, then you should consider the manner in which he's getting exactly what he wants.

Wed, 2010-12-22 15:39 — John (not verified)

I imagine that a judge would have an opinion on murder but is still trusted to be impartial in each case. I do not think it really matters as long as the outcome is against Murdoch... Impartially speaking of course