Amid the blanket coverage of the Iran conflict, up popped a story on the business pages that appeared to be somehow related but oddly timed.
It was in The Telegraph, and said that Sky is preparing to end its news joint venture with IMI, owner of The National. The article erroneously claimed the British satellite broadcaster has given notice that it will terminate Sky News Arabia’s licence to use its brand next year.
According to the report, the split follows Sky News Arabia being accused of biased and inaccurate coverage on Sudan.
The piece leapt out. It was not long ago that The Telegraph was being courted by the same IMI. Its bid, in partnership with RedBird Capital Partners, a US private equity firm, was blocked by the British government over concerns of foreign ownership, and only last week, the paper was finally sold to German publisher Axel Springer.
Strange, too, that now of all moments, Sky should be said to be pulling out, just when Sky News Arabia is flat out covering the missile strikes, energy shock and regional and global turmoil.
Sky News Arabia’s reporting and analysis is in demand. Even though the deal would finish next year, the fallout from the present crisis will continue and be long-lasting, with ramifications for the region and internationally for many years to come. Sky News Arabia is in position "A" where reporting of the reshaping is concerned. Its output could not be more heavily wanted or pertinent. So yes, it seemed weird.
The partnership is not due for renewal until May 2027, about 15 months away. It’s not due to end on December 31, but will run well into next year, for four months, regardless.
As someone who has sat on media company boards, I can vouch for the fact that journalistic matters rarely reach the boardroom, not in my experience anyway. Sure, if there was to be a change in leadership or increased investment or cuts, but even then, they were approached from a purely business standpoint.
Commercial and editorial rarely mixed. At the highest level the discussions were very much concerned with cost-benefit, the P&L, returns on capital – those sorts of issues. The idea that one piece of journalism would affect an entire corporate relationship over a decade old would be fanciful. New products, projects, mergers – all these and more, are determined without reference to anything the journalists have said and done.
Sometimes, it was hard for those in the newsroom to believe this. They saw the two sides as being tightly linked, marching together, arm-in-arm. What they could not fathom, or rather would not accept, was that numbers on a spreadsheet or places on a chart did not have names, personalities and topics attached to them. Whatever was concerning the folks on the journalistic floor did not reach the board and those responsible for strategy, and vice versa.
That did not stop the reporters putting two and two together and making five. I would assure them, until I was purple in the face, it was not the case and still I would not be believed. Even if they did listen, more times than not the prevailing view was, well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?
It’s possible that Sky was unhappy about Sky News Arabia’s treatment of the Sudanese story, I do not know. But would that spill over into cancelling its involvement in a 24-hour Arabic language news and current affairs service? I don’t for a minute imagine so.
Sure, disquiet may have been expressed from either side on a number of issues – again I don’t have a clue. That, though, is likely to have been the extent of it. As I stress, I have no notion as to what transpired.
What I am certain about is that no sensible, commercially minded management reacts in such a fashion. Launched in 2012, Sky News Arabia broadcasts across the Middle East and North Africa and is one of the world’s most prominent Arabic-language outlets. That’s major, not minor, and its future is not determined by a single news item.
It’s also the case that what happens in the boardroom usually stays in the boardroom. It’s strictly commercial, and the parties are bound by tight confidentiality. Neither Sky nor IMI are likely to reveal the content of continuing negotiations on the record, not in answer to a journalist’s questions.
The silence should not be regarded as affirmation. Unfortunately, that is precisely how it is usually seen.
The negotiations are continuing between Sky and IMI, that much is certain. No conclusion has been reached, which could mean there is a whiff of discord; we do not know. Yet to say that a potential difference of opinion is responsible for blowing apart a long-standing relationship smacks of going too far. If the marriage was to ultimately break down, it would not be because of Sudan, but due to corporate considerations.
I would be lying if I said that as a reporter, I’ve never been guilty of stretching, or had not been grateful for corporate confidentiality.
Equally I’ve been upstairs and have an appreciation of how things there work.
