Key questions about free speech

One of the incontrovertible hallmarks of a free society is a free press, one which prints without fear or favour, that keeps the powerful honest and informs public debate. The British press has been free of licensing by the crown since 1695, free of a secretary of state issuing warrant against authors or papers they accuse of libel since 1870. It is one of Britain’s essential freedoms, a central plank of what defines us.

In a capitalist economy, such freedom has long been seen as compatible with private foreign citizens owning important newspapers or other media, not just in Britain but also other countries. This newspaper was once owned by a Canadian citizen and international investment is common in the media. But there has not, so far, been a case of a major Western media outlet being controlled by a foreign state, let alone one which, while an important military ally and trading partner, is not a democracy and does not uphold free speech.

As readers will be aware, this newspaper could find itself in such a position if a proposed sale to RedBird IMI were to proceed. The proposed acquirer is a joint venture between a US private equity firm and the Emirati royal family’s media vehicle, International Media Investments, with the majority of the funds being provided by the latter. There is little distinction between members of the ruling family and the state itself in the UAE, and thus the proposed takeover is of a different nature to previous cases of foreign ownership. It is certainly a distinction worthy of debate, one that goes to the heart of whether the sale of the Telegraph would maintain the integrity of our media and political culture. Would this kind of deal be permitted in the United States? Or in any other democracy? These are important questions which deserve close consideration.

It is true that Manchester City Football Club is majority Abu Dhabi owned. Yet there is little equivalence between ownership of a football club and ownership of a key national newspaper. The former does not directly shape the political debate; the latter has profound influence via news stories, campaigns and commentary. It is possible to support one while debating the merits of the other.

The proposed deal also raises philosophical and practical questions about what owning an asset actually means. RedBird IMI is promising to guarantee editorial independence. Is it possible for an owner to have no editorial influence at all, direct or indirect? Is it possible to design a workable legal structure with such an aim in mind that stands the test of time and commercial ups and downs? If so, why would any buyer be interested, given that other kinds of assets are less risky and could generate a higher rate of return than a media industry still in the midst of a painful transition from print to digital?

There is another, related question: in an era of corrosive scepticism, of fake news and of the rise of demagogic social media such as TikTok, would readers accept any such guarantees and continue to trust the journalism they consumed? These are also questions to be discussed.

One principle must remain sacrosanct: any deal to buy the Telegraph must maintain Britain’s robust tradition of free speech.