You’ve spotted a subtle but significant point of confusion in the phrasing!
The perceived contradiction arises from the pronoun “the channel” in the second sentence:
1. **”ITV hits such as I’m a Celebrity to stay free to watch after Sky takeover”**
* This clearly states that **Sky is taking over ITV.**
2. **”Sky boss Dana Strong’s comments came as the channel announces it is buying ITV’s media and entertainment divisions in a £1.6bn deal.”**
* If “the channel” here refers to **Sky** (which is the most logical interpretation given “Sky boss Dana Strong’s comments” and the first sentence), then Sky is buying ITV’s divisions. This aligns perfectly with a “Sky takeover.”
* **However, if one misreads “the channel” to refer to ITV itself**, the sentence would imply “ITV announces it is buying ITV’s media and entertainment divisions.” This is where the contradiction would lie, as a company doesn’t typically “buy its own divisions” in a £1.6bn deal in the context of being taken over.
**The most probable (and logical) interpretation to avoid a contradiction is that “the channel” refers to Sky.**
So, the intended meaning is:
* Sky is taking over ITV.
* Sky’s boss commented on this, as **Sky** (the channel making the acquisition) announced it is buying ITV’s media and entertainment divisions for £1.6bn.
The phrasing “the channel announces it is buying ITV’s media and entertainment divisions” is a bit clunky, and could have been clearer by explicitly stating “Sky announces…” to avoid this ambiguity.
