The real threat facing British media is not foreign investment

Telegraph

5 days ago

The current debate around foreign ownership of our media is a bizarre one.
There is this constant fear that somehow a nasty foreign power will get control of a brand we love and, without our knowledge, gently pervert its editorials until we are slaves to a foreignphilosophy and are turned against ourselves.
This newspaper was under exactly such a 'threat' of a so-called hostile takeover. Rather than being delighted that a pool of sovereign capital from an allied country wanted to invest in our ailing traditional media, we were instead horrified.
The debate raged in the House of Lords. I should declare an interest here: my wife's family bought The Telegraph in the 19th century. I feel its sense of national heritage keenly and have the same sentimental attachment to our historic brands as anyone.
However, the fact is, we need capital to fund the mega-projects of the future. We urgently require money to take our once-great industries such as media and turn them into a world-class offering, which – and this is important – keep British culture dominant globally.
On Tuesday in the House of Lords, we will debate whether or not a foreign sovereign entity can buy as much as 15pc of a media company's stock without triggering a range of complex processes to prevent them gaining more. This is an increase from the 5pc considered by the previous government.
This is frankly a weak increase from an absurdly low level. The normal definition of minimal ownership is 25pc and even our very strict National Investment Act sets the reasonable levels at 20pc.
We should instead be celebrating international investment in our country's arts and media. French broadcaster Canal+ has recently moved its listing to London. Billions of pounds have poured into funding our super-wave of film studio developments. The Daily Mail website remains one of the most popular in the whole world.
If we think it's a good idea to strip out all sovereign wealth funds from investing in the UK, then we have only ourselves to blame when these companies go under, shrink or simply leave for more welcoming regimes.
The big question to answer now is: what exactly is a media company? My children have never read a newspaper. They couldn't even operate The Telegraph in physical form. They get their news and information from a variety of sources, as we all do.
Is a British media firm a newspaper or is it a TV production company, a theme park or a social media influencer?
The fact is that we have moved from the age of literacy to the age of oracy. We now don't read as much as we did to form our opinions, but listen and watch instead. As politicians, how we get votes comes more from TikTok (which is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance) than The Daily Telegraph.
Creating laws for yesterday's structures is very parliament, but in reality we are missing where the threats lie. That threat is not in a sovereign wealth fund buying a 15pc stake in a British newspaper, but in how an algorithm is structured to drive a certain type of content to our citizens.
Politicians also love to be seen to 'protect' things. This is why we brought in the National Security and Investment Act (NSIA). It effectively allows the Government to call in almost anything for reasons of 'national security'. There is a legitimate threat from China which has a strategy of buying up economic assets. The NSIA deals with this.
As investment minister under the last government, I saw the need to balance national security with the need for investment capital. Yes, we need protections from undue influence, but I would ask everyone reading this to think about how we can actually make our markets more open, more flexible and easier to access.
I would ask you to consider how we can grow our media sector, rather than create hurdles to its expansion. Most importantly, we must consider how we can create a powerful new online sector which can rival other nations so that we can profit from this new era of oracy and continue to dominate the culture of the world for our benefit.
I look forward to the future of The Telegraph as much as I celebrate its past.