We rarely stop and think about what we’re watching, least of all who is presenting it to us, nor their motives for doing so. Most of us also like to think we are fairly autonomous and free-thinking individuals who make up their own minds on issues based on objective information sourced from reliable and independent outlets. However, given some thought, how individual and free from influence are we?

Today (22.11.2006) heralded ITVs rejection of NTL’s offer of a £4.7bn takeover. This followed media magnate, Rupert Murdoch’s recent acquisition through BSkyB of an 18% stake in the targeted company for £1bn. Spokespersons for NTL, part of the Virgin Group owned by Richard Branson were outraged at the rejection and are quoted as saying that ITV “made no effort to engage in further discussion” and simply rejected the offer outright.

It is not this rejection that is the subject of my musings, however, it is the wider implications. Reflecting on my earlier point about what we watch and how we watch it, it is illuminating to either learn for the first time or take some time to remember that Rupert Murdoch has his metaphorical finger on the remote of many media channels and influencers. He controls Sky, the Times, the News of the World and many other organisations that influence our lives in one way or another. Nearly all of these outlets have some particular political slant or influence which they, directly or otherwise, exert on their interested public. Just take a look at the top banner of the NewsCorporation website to see how far his tendrils reach!

Whilst it can be said that Branson too has his wick dipped in many a Virgin, enterprise, he is really just a brand figure or envoy for the group. Branson doesn’t seem to have any political machinations nor particular leanings that make me nervous about the power he can exert over the voting public. His operations and activities are relatively transparent, something in today’s media which is essential to avoid intrigue, investigation and unwanted criticism. It is the mystery of Murdoch and the potential for covert political influence.

The weight Murdoch carries both financially, politically and generally within the media sector cannot be overestimated. It is not surprising, then, to find that only the Lib Dems are concerned at Murdoch’s pointed acquisition of 18% of ITV shares, 2% below the cross-media ownership boundary. It is reported in the Guardian that (quoting The Times – a Murdoch venture, remember) the Labour Party was “happy” and the Conservatives “content” with this new acquisition, suggesting that the pending OfCom investigation is unlikely to yield any meaningful result.

“Mr Nice Guy:- gives money to charity, flies people to space (almost), saves children and kittens from burning buildings”*

“Mr Nasty:- intent on (media)world domination, shady political activities, steals candy from babies”*

I guess what I am saying is that whilst I’m against media regulation in general, sometimes, monopolies and those that attempt to obtain them need to be kept a close eye on. I wouldn’t be particularly bothered if Branson took over ITV, let’s face it – the programming is unlikely to get any worse (can it!?). But if Murdoch owned it…who knows. This is the point made by Peter Wilby in Wednesday’s Guardian (a non-Murdoch enterprise, thankfully) – we just don’t know what Murdoch is up to nor what he really controls behind the scenes.

Exactly how much influence does he have over policy, politicians and the electorate? how much can his influence swing things – could he effectively decide the next general election!?

His current tactics are that of a destroyer – not looking to obtain new territory, but looking to break off enough of a share to make them unobtainable or at least regarded as a pointless acquisition by it’s enemies.

To use a crude analogy – you’re unlikely to catch anything undesirable from a Virgin, but God only knows what you’re letting yourself in for when you make partners with curious bedfellows such as Murdoch.

*these statements may not be true