James Murdoch, despite being called “toxic to shareholders”, stays on the BSkyB board

James Murdoch - despite being called “toxic to shareholders” - stays on the board for BSkyB, which prompts the question, how far have we really come?


Despite being described at BSkyB’s AGM as being “toxic to shareholders”, James Murdoch has retained his place on the board with only five per cent of shareholders opposing his continued tenure.

Yesterday, Left Foot Forward explained why it was in everyone’s best interests for Murdoch to go, not only because of his “wilful ignorance” when it came to the phone hacking scandal (in the words of a Parliamentary committee), but also because some of BSkyB’s major shareholders are pension funds and insurance companies.

Ofcom has also attacked his record whilst on the board for BSkyB during the phone hacking scandal, saying they considered his conduct – including his “failure to initiate action on his own account on a number of occasions” – to be “both difficult to comprehend and ill-judged”.

His reappointment has happened in unison with an attempt to improve the public image of BSkyB, with The Guardian reporting an influx of new directors into the board; supposedly BSkyB has smart bombed investor groups with charm, in order to reassure them of James Murdoch’s experience in the role.

The fact that Murdoch, who presided over a company at the epicentre of a truly shocking and disgraceful period in media history, has retained a place in a vastly powerful media organisation speaks volumes of the company’s failure to learn the lessons of the scandal.

As Left Foot Forward made clear earlier this week, the case for regulatory reform is as obvious now as before, and cannot be allowed to be blown off course.

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today. 

7 Responses to “James Murdoch, despite being called “toxic to shareholders”, stays on the BSkyB board”

  1. Selohesra

    How could it possibly be that shareholders ignore the shrill anti-Murdoch cries from LFF, Watson , Coogan & Co.

  2. steve

    I think Alan Partridge is great and – though unique – a person I could happily have a pint with. His ludicrous and insufferable Dave Spart-like creation Steve Coogan on the other hand, I don’t think I could even stay in the same room with

  3. Newsbot9

    Great, then they can accept the consequences – that media organisation being disallowed expansion into the UK market via mergers again, period. For starters.

  4. Selohesra

    If only media organisations that were unfit for purpose could be crushed so easily – we would be free from the relentless bias of BBC

  5. Newsbot9

    Yes, how terrible – you’d be free of the relentless duty to provide balance. You’d be free to propaganda-away at will!

    You keep calling anything which refuses to confirm to Correct Doctrine as inherently unfit, Comrade!

  6. gvev

    the BBC is guilty of attacking hundreds or thousand of children and covering it up for decades. just what you would expect from a left-wing organisation

  7. Newsbot9

    Ah yes, you’re confusing your own organisation with the BBC again I see, polymorphic troll.

Leave a Reply