🇬🇧🇦🇪 BRITAIN SAYS IT'S PROTECTING PRESS FREEDOM. IMI HITS BACK: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF EDITORIAL INTERFERENCE?
The Telegraph reports that Ofcom found the UAE-backed takeover posed a serious threat to British press freedom, warning that Abu Dhabi had both the power and incentive to influence editorial coverage.
But International Media Investments (IMI) is pushing back hard.
The company says Ofcom made no finding of actual editorial interference, ignored its track record and dismissed legally binding safeguards designed to protect the newspaper's independence.
IMI argues that the regulator judged the bid on its connections to the UAE rather than its conduct.
And there's a much bigger issue here.
If a regulator can reject a media acquisition based on the perceived risk of potential future political influence, how much weight should it give to enforceable protections and the investor's actual record?
The Telegraph calls the findings damning. IMI says the entire assessment was fundamentally flawed.
A strong rebuttal from IMI, worth reading in full.
Source: IMI, Ofcom and CMA reports, The Telegraph / Writer: Oliver
💬 13🔁 10
♥ 174👁 81K
Top reply · ♥ 0
nullshard @t47625430 ·
↗
@MarioNawfal Sure, because foreign owners never push an agenda. Except the ones who do, and nobody can tell which is which until it's too late








































































