IMI Statement in Response to Ofcom Report

International Media Investments (IMI) completely rejects Ofcom’s report: its methodology, its reasoning, and its conclusions, which were reached before the evidence was examined.

Ofcom was tasked with assessing a commercial media company. It failed to do so. In an astonishing admission written into the report itself, Ofcom states that it was “not necessary to rely on information about the reported past behaviour of IMI associated businesses.” In plain English: a public regulator tasked with evaluating IMI admitted on the record that it ignored IMI’s actual track record to reach its verdict.

Instead of judging the RedBird IMI bid for The Telegraph on the facts, Ofcom based its assessment on an arbitrary and biased set of assumptions, conflating the commercial interests of a private company with the conduct of a sovereign state.

It is not the role of a British media regulator to adjudicate the laws and governance of foreign nations.

Ofcom’s own report made no findings of editorial interference by IMI and acknowledges the following facts:

• It found no evidence that IMI ever sought to influence RedBird IMI’s existing portfolio companies.
• It accepts that The National has a strong compliance record with the Editors’ Code of Practice, and that there have been no IPSO rulings against the publication.
• It accepts that every historical allegation regarding The National’s newsroom predates IMI’s ownership.
• Ofcom admits that there appears to be a viable commercial incentive and rationale for RedBird IMI’s acquisition of the Telegraph.

Yet, having made these findings, Ofcom concluded that none of it mattered.

Ofcom gave no weight to IMI’s legally binding, permanent undertakings- including a total guarantee never to influence editorial decisions at The Telegraph, alongside an independent Editorial Trust with absolute veto power over the appointment and removal of the Editor-in-Chief.

Regulatory decisions in British media have historically been decided on conduct, binding commitments, and commercial incentives. The RedBird IMI bid was not judged on the facts or on IMI’s track record. It was judged on its origin and not its conduct. IMI encourages investors to read the report thoroughly.

Allegations are not findings. Association is not control. Speculation is not evidence. IMI rejects any suggestion that it has ever interfered, or would ever interfere, in the editorial independence of its media outlets.