Public turn on Murdoch: 70% oppose BSkyB takeover, 72% say he has “too much influence”

Public opinion is firmly opposed to Rupert Murdoch's proposed takeover of BSkyB, with voters finally waking up to the fact he has way too much influence over UK politics.

Public opinion is firmly opposed to Rupert Murdoch’s proposed takeover of BSkyB, with voters finally waking up to the fact he has “too much influence” over UK politics. The issue will come to a head this Wednesday, with Ed Miliband calling a Commons debate and vote on the News Corp takeover – a vote he seems certain to win, with Lib Dems backing him and many Tories reluctant to vote against him.


A YouGov poll (pdf) for The Sunday Times revealed, in response to the following questions:

Should the News Corp takeover of BSkyB be allowed? Yes: 9%, No: 70%;

What grounds should the takeover decision be made on? Competition grounds alone: 24%, Should take account of phone hacking: 54%;

What do you think of the original police investigation? Adequate: 6%, Inadequate: 75%;

Is it acceptable to pay the police for information? Yes: 2%, No: 92%;

What do you think of press regulation? PCC should continue: 25%, Parliament should set up a formal regulatory authority: 61%;

When should a public inquiry start? ASAP: 48%, After police investigation concludes: 44%

Who should conduct the investigation into the News of the World? News International themsleves: 6%, Someone from outside the organisation: 90%.

Are tabloids fair and accurate in their reporting? Yes: 9%, No: 71%;

Are tabloids out of control? Yes: 78%, No 14%.

While YouGov’s poll for Avaaz (pdf) found, in response to the following:

What impact will the BSkyB takeover have on the media? It will increase diversity: 4%, It will decrease diversity: 49%;

What impact will the deal have on journalism: Increase journalistic standards: 3%, Decrease journalistic standards: 52%;

What do you think the government takes into account more? Public interest: 14%, Interests of media companies: 43%;

Are Murdoch and other News Corp execs “fit and proper” people to own British media? Yes: 11%, No: 67%;

How much influence does Murdoch have over British politics? Too much: 72%, Not enough: 2%

What do you think of David Cameron’s relationship to Murdoch and News Corporation? Too close: 51%, About right: 12%.

In his commentary, YouGov president Peter Kellner concludes:

“However you look at these results, the picture is bleak for News Corporation. Its executives have a vast challenge to restore public faith in their operations.”

We will have more on the fallout from the phone hacking scandal later today and throughout the week on Left Foot Forward.

56 Responses to “Public turn on Murdoch: 70% oppose BSkyB takeover, 72% say he has “too much influence””

  1. wolfst∇r

    RT @leftfootfwd: Public turn on Murdoch: 70% oppose BSkyB takeover, 72% say he has "too much influence": //t.co/9qjZqMX #NotW

  2. sunil bhardwaj

    Public turn on Murdoch: 70% oppose BSkyB takeover, 72% say he has "too much influence": //bit.ly/rbmmHp #NotW #phonehacking

  3. Roger Rederer

    Going off topic slightly; I’d like to know of anybody who’s been sent to jail for the offence of not paying their tv licence. A handful of people have done a bit of time for refusing to pay the fine, but that’s another crime altogether.
    For what it’s worth I consider the BBC to be value for money (less than 3quid a week!).
    Now the Scum has been dragged into the frame it’s only a matter of time before advertisers start pulling out. The reptillian digger will soon scurry off back to his island off the Gold Coast. Even this old trash peddler can’t hold back the tide of public outrage.

  4. Anon E Mouse

    matthew fox – Huh?

  5. Anon E Mouse

    Dave Citizen – It goes to integrity – something seemingly lacking in Labour activists it appears.

    The reason we are discussing Sky TV is if someone pays to fund Rupert Murdoch, like Shamik Das for example, then to criticise the character of the man whilst funding him is just double standard hypocrisy. If everybody stopped giving Murdoch their money he wouldn’t be in business.

    None of your other examples can realistically be affected by not funding them but Murdoch can and it has been shown to be effective re NOTW.

    If men do not have the courage of their convictions then what is the point? If Neil Kinnock or John Prescott claim they would never enter the House of Lords and then do it. If Diane Abbott sends her children to a private school or Harriet Harman is educated at the same place as the chancellor and allows a “toffs” campaign in Labour and her husband gets through her “all women” shortlist it just stinks.

    Your post is nothing more than a reason to excuse double standards and to allow Labour to appear to be able to do anything in complete contravention to founding mission of the party about representing the working classes in this country.

    I love Kinnocks speech and may I suggest you just watch it one more time Dave Citizen – it still raises the hairs on my neck!

    //www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRUEenPlXpU

  6. Dave Citizen

    Thanks for the link – don’t quite get the relevance unless you are referring to your own dogmatic adherence to a black and white vision of the world that pits 1970s socialists against 1980s free marketeers.

Leave a Reply