The Guardian view on Murdoch’s Sky bid: just say no

The right decision on good grounds is welcome, even when it could have been made on better ones. That is the case with the competition regulator’s provisional block on Rupert Murdoch’s bid for full control of Sky. Karen Bradley, then culture secretary, said the deal gave rise to “non-fanciful concerns” about the commitment to meeting broadcasting standards in the UK when she referred it. But the Competition and Markets Authority did not believe the public interest was threatened in that respect, despite acknowledging serious issues: the phone-hacking scandal in the UK (which put paid to Mr Murdoch’s first bid in 2011) and the conduct of Fox News and its senior staff in the US.

Instead, it has warned against the acquisition of the remaining 69% of the broadcaster solely on the grounds of media plurality. Although this issue is not the whole cause for concern, it is enough. Ms Bradley’s successor, Matt Hancock, should embrace her courage and say no when the regulator completes its work and the matter returns to his department in late May. The Murdoch family’s impact on news consumption is already immense: its news outlets are watched, read or heard by nearly a third of the UK’s population. Gaining full control of Sky News would strengthen its influence and compound concerns about the way it uses it (remember Mr Murdoch’s reported complaint about the EU: “When I go to Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”)

The CMA lays out possible remedies: a ban on the deal; divestment (it is unclear who would buy a loss-making channel, and Sky News has never operated as a standalone business); or behavioural undertakings which may be hard to uphold (remember Mr Murdoch’s purchase of the Times and Sunday Times).

His supporters grasp at two straws. The first is that December’s announcement of a $66bn deal to sell Disney most of the 21st Century Fox media and entertainment assets – including the Sky stake – renders concerns about plurality effectively redundant. But the CMA cannot reach a conclusion based on a deal that has not yet happened, and could go ahead under different terms. The second is to suggest that Sky News is under threat because it is the stumbling block, and that shutting it would itself damage media plurality – which is indeed the case. Though the CMA says it would not permit closure while its investigation is ongoing, Sky has already said it will review its future if the bid is blocked.

This is not a logical outcome: it is merely a threat. Ownership of Sky News should not pose a problem for Disney. Mr Murdoch boasts of being a “news man”; only last month he described the Disney deal as Fox “returning to our roots” of news and sport. To axe Sky News would be an act of pique, undermining his own claims of concern for news and broadcasting. Mr Hancock and his boss, Theresa May, should put a full stop to this unhappy affair. Mr Murdoch, and Disney, should allow Sky News to flourish.