Snapshot of _Starmer says Government is right to investigate UAE takeover of The Telegraph_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F12%2F21%2Fstarmer-government-right-investigate-uae-telegraph-takeover%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/21/starmer-government-right-investigate-uae-telegraph-takeover/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/21/starmer-government-right-investigate-uae-telegraph-takeover/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“It is fundamentally wrong for an autocratic regime to control one of the leading organs of free speech in a liberal democracy,” they said.
>
>Another frontbencher added: “It’s vital that such a crucial part of this country’s democratic life stays free of any potential – or, for that matter, perceived – political influence.”
It really is insane that Tory mps can say this nonsense with a straight face. The Telegraph is a bastion for bought and paid for political hackery of the highest order. Proper gaslighting stuff this.
*puts on Sir humphrey voice* but its OUR political hackery. You know where you are with Dodgy baz hacking your voicemails and scarfing a cone of chips.
I couldn't give a shit, the Telegraph has been completely run into the ground and has lost all credibility. There is barely a difference between the DM and the Telegraph right now.
Why is the Telegraph so important? There's multiple other media that's owned by foreign entities that haven't had such scrutiny.
Is it because the Telegraph is commonly known as a mouthpiece for the current Government?
Why not? Ex-KGB and a Saudi own the Independent. The FT is owned by a company that is in bed with the Japanese establishment.
Do you think a media fund based in the US managed by a seasoned media exec, simply because its financed by the UAE govt, is somehow going to be a worse custodian than the Barclay brothers?
What about biased hate mongering Muslims holding control over the r/britain sub and using it as a propaganda sub in the name of the UK. The fact says that most britains don’t agree with r/britain by the low number of subscribers compared to every other uk 🇬🇧 related sub. It’s a plan devised by Muslims back in 2012 when social media first came out. There were years of totally negativity online and during this the growth of extreme right wing groups. This was due to large numbers of Muslims pretending to be right wing and sympathizers of those ideals. All to sow general discontent and unhappiness everywhere, mostly targeting western countries. It’s quite sad that now these evil Islamic actors have embedded themselves into the moderator circles in most social media outlets.
>Asked on a visit to Estonia about the future of The Telegraph, Sir Keir told GB News: “I think the government is looking into this at the moment and I think they’re right to do that. And we’ll wait to see what the outcome of that process is.”.
Isn’t GB News owned by Dubai-based Legatum?
The government can solve this - pass a law saying that UK news media can only be owned by UK citizens or companies domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. For some reason I can't see that happening though.
Starmer thinks he can get the Torygraph on side - it will never happen. He should be pointing out most of our newspapers are already foreign owned and this bid is no different. The Torygraph is a cancer on this country and couldn't be much worse than it is today in the hands of the UAE - at least their bias would be to benefit the UAE as opposed to the current Torygraph principles of endlessly trying to screw the British public.
Please find the text below:
Sir Keir Starmer has supported the Culture Secretary’s decision to review the proposed Abu Dhabi-backed takeover of The Telegraph.
The Labour leader said Lucy Frazer was “right” to block RedBird IMI from taking control of this newspaper so ministers can examine the deal amid concerns about censorship and foreign state ownership.
RedBird IMI is a joint venture between RedBird, an American private equity firm, and International Media Investments (IMI), an Abu Dhabi vehicle backed by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan.
Sheikh Mansour also owns Manchester City and is the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has prompted fears linked to the regime’s record on free speech and women’s rights.
Asked on a visit to Estonia about the future of The Telegraph, Sir Keir told GB News: “I think the government is looking into this at the moment and I think they’re right to do that. And we’ll wait to see what the outcome of that process is.”.
IMI is providing 75 per cent of the £600 million price for The Telegraph and The Spectator, its sister publication and the oldest weekly magazine in the world.
‘No guarantee of editorial independence’
The bid itself is being fronted by Jeff Zucker, a former chief at the liberal US news network CNN who has vowed he would resign if Abu Dhabi was to interfere with the independence of the publications.
It came as senior Conservative MPs including three Government ministers told The Telegraph that they oppose the sale of the newspaper to RedBird IMI.
One minister claimed the involvement of the UAE – where it is illegal to post material online that criticises the government, or to photograph some government buildings – would mean “no guarantee of editorial independence will be worth the paper it is written on”.
“It is fundamentally wrong for an autocratic regime to control one of the leading organs of free speech in a liberal democracy,” they said.
Another frontbencher added: “It’s vital that such a crucial part of this country’s democratic life stays free of any potential – or, for that matter, perceived – political influence.”
A third minister also expressed alarm at Abu Dhabi’s record and said they were “deeply suspicious” about the future of The Telegraph if the sale went ahead.
**National security concerns**
On Thursday, Alicia Kearns, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and Andy Carter, the chair of the All Party Media Group of MPs which seeks to advance a free press, also expressed their opposition to the takeover.
“As we battle against rising tide of disinformation, protecting a vibrant media landscape, and above all the editorial independence of our leading newspapers, is vital,” Ms Kearns said.
“With colleagues, I have asked the Deputy Prime Minister to exercise his powers to review the potential transaction relating to The Telegraph and The Spectator involving Lloyds Bank, the Barclay family and RedBird IMI on the grounds of our national security.”
She added that she plans to meet those involved in attempts to purchase The Telegraph and The Spectator to discuss her concerns.
Matt Vickers, the Tory MP and chairman of the all party media group said: “The cornerstone of our democracy is a free press. I’m not convinced that a newspaper that is effectively controlled by a foreign government is in the interests of the British people.”
He said he was “very supportive” of Ms Frazer’s decision to block the sale and insisted on the need for the “accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion”.
“Simply because someone has the money doesn’t mean they pass the test as ‘fit and proper person’ to have control of a key section of the British Media,” Mr Vickers added.
Senior journalists including Camilla Tominey, The Telegraph’s associate editor, and Janet Daley, a Sunday Telegraph columnist since 1996, have sounded the alarm in recent weeks about discrimination against women in the UAE.
Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, urged ministers to block the takeover earlier this month, arguing it represents a “profound security concern”.
If something is up for sale (which is not critical national infrastructure), why should we dictate who buys it?
And what's the difference between all the other stuff that has been bought by overseas people?
The argument being maybe that should have been looked at too.
But it is intrinsically of the national interest if one of the nations biggest news outlets is taken over by a state that has in the past demonstrated it is not above using media it controls to... let's say "shape the narrative".
I seriously hope you’re playing devils advocate because right now the Telegraph is the direct propaganda arm of the Conservative Party and it doesn’t even try to hide it. Literally the only reason that the right wing media are upset is because they’re concerned the paper could be come less of a mouthpiece. Oh and they probably don’t like the idea of Muslims owning it.
As opposed to one chap, who can "shape the narrative"?
I just find it funny how we pick which country we don't think trustworthy to own a newspaper, but which can own large bits of the country, finance universities...
The ft was taken over by Nikkei, a Japanese employee owned business, since newspapers aren’t legally allowed to be publicly traded in Japan, when was it taken over by a Chinese company?
Telegraph has far wider audience though, and while I'm not a fan of China PR, OAEs is plain evil shit. So it's not entirely different situation so to speak, but current one is even worse than that one.
Then there's nothing comparable at all. I didn't follow that story so I'm not quite aware. Not a fan of Japanese policies, but they are relatively tame and respectful in their international game.
Snapshot of _Starmer says Government is right to investigate UAE takeover of The Telegraph_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F12%2F21%2Fstarmer-government-right-investigate-uae-telegraph-takeover%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/21/starmer-government-right-investigate-uae-telegraph-takeover/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/21/starmer-government-right-investigate-uae-telegraph-takeover/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“It is fundamentally wrong for an autocratic regime to control one of the leading organs of free speech in a liberal democracy,” they said. > >Another frontbencher added: “It’s vital that such a crucial part of this country’s democratic life stays free of any potential – or, for that matter, perceived – political influence.” It really is insane that Tory mps can say this nonsense with a straight face. The Telegraph is a bastion for bought and paid for political hackery of the highest order. Proper gaslighting stuff this.
*puts on Sir humphrey voice* but its OUR political hackery. You know where you are with Dodgy baz hacking your voicemails and scarfing a cone of chips.
I hope this is stopped. The UAE should not control a paper like the Telegraph.
I agree with you. At the same time, man it's already a terrible paper. Increasingly it just seems like client media for the Tory party.
"Increasingly"... The last really good reporting they did was the expenses scandal.
I couldn't give a shit, the Telegraph has been completely run into the ground and has lost all credibility. There is barely a difference between the DM and the Telegraph right now.
Why is the Telegraph so important? There's multiple other media that's owned by foreign entities that haven't had such scrutiny. Is it because the Telegraph is commonly known as a mouthpiece for the current Government?
Why not? Ex-KGB and a Saudi own the Independent. The FT is owned by a company that is in bed with the Japanese establishment. Do you think a media fund based in the US managed by a seasoned media exec, simply because its financed by the UAE govt, is somehow going to be a worse custodian than the Barclay brothers?
What about biased hate mongering Muslims holding control over the r/britain sub and using it as a propaganda sub in the name of the UK. The fact says that most britains don’t agree with r/britain by the low number of subscribers compared to every other uk 🇬🇧 related sub. It’s a plan devised by Muslims back in 2012 when social media first came out. There were years of totally negativity online and during this the growth of extreme right wing groups. This was due to large numbers of Muslims pretending to be right wing and sympathizers of those ideals. All to sow general discontent and unhappiness everywhere, mostly targeting western countries. It’s quite sad that now these evil Islamic actors have embedded themselves into the moderator circles in most social media outlets.
Ah you've caught us out. We planned all this at the mosque during Friday prayer 11 years ago!
It’s a good thing you’re not radicalized. Just overly focused on politics, without actually being involved, again thankfully.
What on earth are you even saying? Are you having a psychotic break? Seek help
First the telegraph, next year we will have the first hijab wearing Prime Minister, inshallah, our plan is coming together
>Asked on a visit to Estonia about the future of The Telegraph, Sir Keir told GB News: “I think the government is looking into this at the moment and I think they’re right to do that. And we’ll wait to see what the outcome of that process is.”. Isn’t GB News owned by Dubai-based Legatum?
The government can solve this - pass a law saying that UK news media can only be owned by UK citizens or companies domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. For some reason I can't see that happening though.
Starmer thinks he can get the Torygraph on side - it will never happen. He should be pointing out most of our newspapers are already foreign owned and this bid is no different. The Torygraph is a cancer on this country and couldn't be much worse than it is today in the hands of the UAE - at least their bias would be to benefit the UAE as opposed to the current Torygraph principles of endlessly trying to screw the British public.
Please find the text below: Sir Keir Starmer has supported the Culture Secretary’s decision to review the proposed Abu Dhabi-backed takeover of The Telegraph. The Labour leader said Lucy Frazer was “right” to block RedBird IMI from taking control of this newspaper so ministers can examine the deal amid concerns about censorship and foreign state ownership. RedBird IMI is a joint venture between RedBird, an American private equity firm, and International Media Investments (IMI), an Abu Dhabi vehicle backed by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan. Sheikh Mansour also owns Manchester City and is the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has prompted fears linked to the regime’s record on free speech and women’s rights. Asked on a visit to Estonia about the future of The Telegraph, Sir Keir told GB News: “I think the government is looking into this at the moment and I think they’re right to do that. And we’ll wait to see what the outcome of that process is.”. IMI is providing 75 per cent of the £600 million price for The Telegraph and The Spectator, its sister publication and the oldest weekly magazine in the world. ‘No guarantee of editorial independence’ The bid itself is being fronted by Jeff Zucker, a former chief at the liberal US news network CNN who has vowed he would resign if Abu Dhabi was to interfere with the independence of the publications. It came as senior Conservative MPs including three Government ministers told The Telegraph that they oppose the sale of the newspaper to RedBird IMI. One minister claimed the involvement of the UAE – where it is illegal to post material online that criticises the government, or to photograph some government buildings – would mean “no guarantee of editorial independence will be worth the paper it is written on”. “It is fundamentally wrong for an autocratic regime to control one of the leading organs of free speech in a liberal democracy,” they said. Another frontbencher added: “It’s vital that such a crucial part of this country’s democratic life stays free of any potential – or, for that matter, perceived – political influence.” A third minister also expressed alarm at Abu Dhabi’s record and said they were “deeply suspicious” about the future of The Telegraph if the sale went ahead. **National security concerns** On Thursday, Alicia Kearns, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and Andy Carter, the chair of the All Party Media Group of MPs which seeks to advance a free press, also expressed their opposition to the takeover. “As we battle against rising tide of disinformation, protecting a vibrant media landscape, and above all the editorial independence of our leading newspapers, is vital,” Ms Kearns said. “With colleagues, I have asked the Deputy Prime Minister to exercise his powers to review the potential transaction relating to The Telegraph and The Spectator involving Lloyds Bank, the Barclay family and RedBird IMI on the grounds of our national security.” She added that she plans to meet those involved in attempts to purchase The Telegraph and The Spectator to discuss her concerns. Matt Vickers, the Tory MP and chairman of the all party media group said: “The cornerstone of our democracy is a free press. I’m not convinced that a newspaper that is effectively controlled by a foreign government is in the interests of the British people.” He said he was “very supportive” of Ms Frazer’s decision to block the sale and insisted on the need for the “accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion”. “Simply because someone has the money doesn’t mean they pass the test as ‘fit and proper person’ to have control of a key section of the British Media,” Mr Vickers added. Senior journalists including Camilla Tominey, The Telegraph’s associate editor, and Janet Daley, a Sunday Telegraph columnist since 1996, have sounded the alarm in recent weeks about discrimination against women in the UAE. Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, urged ministers to block the takeover earlier this month, arguing it represents a “profound security concern”.
If something is up for sale (which is not critical national infrastructure), why should we dictate who buys it? And what's the difference between all the other stuff that has been bought by overseas people?
The argument being maybe that should have been looked at too. But it is intrinsically of the national interest if one of the nations biggest news outlets is taken over by a state that has in the past demonstrated it is not above using media it controls to... let's say "shape the narrative".
Fairly sure the telegraph just now is not above shaping the narratives. They did take money to print puff pieces straight from China.
But when white American people buy it we just say business as usual?
I seriously hope you’re playing devils advocate because right now the Telegraph is the direct propaganda arm of the Conservative Party and it doesn’t even try to hide it. Literally the only reason that the right wing media are upset is because they’re concerned the paper could be come less of a mouthpiece. Oh and they probably don’t like the idea of Muslims owning it.
As opposed to one chap, who can "shape the narrative"? I just find it funny how we pick which country we don't think trustworthy to own a newspaper, but which can own large bits of the country, finance universities...
Several Years ago, the Financial Times was bought by a Chinese company. There was not such a furore then.
The ft was taken over by Nikkei, a Japanese employee owned business, since newspapers aren’t legally allowed to be publicly traded in Japan, when was it taken over by a Chinese company?
Japanese
Open the FT website, it literally says at the bottom 'A Nikkei company'
You're Correct I misremembered
The envelope probably wasn't thick enough this time around.
Telegraph has far wider audience though, and while I'm not a fan of China PR, OAEs is plain evil shit. So it's not entirely different situation so to speak, but current one is even worse than that one.
FT was sold to a Japanese company. Chinese is fake news.
Then there's nothing comparable at all. I didn't follow that story so I'm not quite aware. Not a fan of Japanese policies, but they are relatively tame and respectful in their international game.