International Media Investments (IMI) has rejected Ofcom’s report into RedBird IMI’s bid for The Telegraph, criticising its “methodology, reasoning and conclusions which were reached before the evidence was examined”.
The British media regulator’s report, which has been released by the UK's Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, followed a protracted takeover saga involving the British newspaper group which ended when it was acquired by German media conglomerate Axel Springer in April.
The report was part of an initial review by Ofcom but that was halted after Redbird IMI sold the newspaper group at a profit. While the purpose of the report was the actual acquisition, the UK government chose to publish the report without the completion of the full process.
IMI, the Abu Dhabi-based media company which was part of a joint venture with RedBird bidding for The Telegraph, responded to the report with a statement criticising the regulator’s investigation and defending the editorial independence of its titles. IMI’s media assets include The National and Sky News Arabia.
In a statement released on Friday, IMI said: “Ofcom was tasked with assessing a commercial media company. It failed to do so. In an astonishing admission written into the report itself, Ofcom states that it was ‘not necessary to rely on information about the reported past behaviour of IMI associated businesses’. In plain English: a public regulator tasked with evaluating IMI admitted on the record that it ignored IMI’s actual track record to reach its verdict.”
'Undermining investor confidence'
A respected British business leader and politician added his voice to IMI's criticism of the publication of the Ofcom report.
"Britain cannot spend half its time courting investment from the Gulf and the other half putting up barriers when that investment arrives," billionaire property developer Nick Candy and treasurer of the Reform Party told The National.
"The Government's handling of the RedBird IMI deal was a total disaster and a missed opportunity for British business, and revisiting a two-year-old report now only serves to undermine international investor confidence further. If we want Britain to be taken seriously as a destination for global capital, we need to start acting like it."
For its part, IMI accused Ofcom of using “an arbitrary and biased set of assumptions, conflating the commercial interests of a private company with the conduct of a sovereign state”.
“It is not the role of a British media regulator to adjudicate the laws and governance of foreign nations,” IMI added in its statement.
IMI pointed out that Ofcom “gave no weight” to the company’s legally binding undertakings – notably never to influence The Telegraph’s editorial decisions. An Independent Editorial Trust would have had veto power over the appointment and removal of the Telegraph’s Editor-in-Chief.
Indeed, IMI noted, Ofcom’s report made no findings of editorial interference against the company. Ofcom accepted The National’s strong compliance record with the Editors’ Code of Practice, that there have been no IPSO rulings against it, and that every historical allegation regarding its newsroom predates IMI’s ownership.
Furthermore, Ofcom “admits that there appears to be a viable commercial incentive and rationale for RedBird IMI’s acquisition of the Telegraph”.
IMI also criticised the way the Ofcom report was presented.
“Regulatory decisions in British media have historically been decided on conduct, binding commitments, and commercial incentives. The RedBird IMI bid was not judged on the facts or on IMI’s track record. It was judged on its origin and not its conduct. IMI encourages investors to read the report thoroughly.
“Allegations are not findings. Association is not control. Speculation is not evidence. IMI rejects any suggestion that it has ever interfered, or would ever interfere, in the editorial independence of its media outlets.”