Channel 4 privatisation
 

The Anus Eater, Nadine, has decided to sell off Channel 4 to allow it to compete against Amazon and Netflix. A free channel competing against pay channels? She obviously has her finger on the pulse (but the pulse of what?) Ch4 doesn't make a profit (not in its remit) all the money it makes is fed back into making more programs.

If you recall, when Bozo refused to take part in an election debate they replaced him with an ice sculpture and the Tories never forgave that sleight.

If you're interested in the fight to stop this, there's a petition:
https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-pr...-nadinedorries

If not, ignore it...:)

(of course I wrote to my MP)

Re: Channel 4 privatisation
 

I'd always regarded Channel 4 as just another station in the competitive advertising-funded market. i can't get particularly excited about this one.

Public-owned and public-funded mean subtly different things to me. If it's never made a profit, what's the downside for the 'public purse' here? (Quality of programming is always heavily subjective.)

Re: Channel 4 privatisation
 

It was never intended to make a profit, it was intended to generate money that would be re-invested in creating programs (which would be sold on). If it becomes a commercial station only the money making programs will continue so creativity will decline. It is successful at doing what it was intended to do - making programs that commercial stations cannot or will not produce.
Dorries claimed the government funded it - which, as was pointed out to her, was totally false (and which she should have known).
https://www.indy100.com/politics/nad...annel-4-funded

She's the Culture secretary and is supposed to promote British culture, this will restrict it. Many of the programs are developed outside of London so it makes more mockery of the whole "levelling up/northern powerhouse" b/s. There is nothing to be gained with this, it's simply vengeance.
Channel 4 was the brainchild of Thatcher btw.

Re: Channel 4 privatisation
 

Bring back Brookside !

Re: Channel 4 privatisation
 

Hang on, don't commercial stations already take risk making programmes that might not sell? Cross-subsidy is always difficult to gauge - there's usually a reason programmes don't make money but I'd suggest that Channel 4 is hardly a long term supporter of shoddy output so the risk is low.

If it's commercially viable as an overall station (i.e revenue at least covers costs) why couldn't it continue similarly with different owners? Not-for-profit is a perfectly acceptable basis for any organisation, it's not limited to public sector. (I accept a new owner will need to recover their purchase costs by way of some profit scrape.)

How, why? Again, seems like it's a sustainable business so why are we afraid of different owners? Why does Channel 4 need Government protection/preservation? Isn't there enough capability to serve public interest culture aspects via the BBC? And enough market size to support non-generic, non-commodity commercial operation for a separately owned Channel 4?

You may be right about an underlying motivation, but equally there doesn't seem to be a great deal to be lost by freeing it from possibly restrictive oversight by an allegedly 'evil Government'.

If the public purse puts nothing in and gets nothing out why is it so essential to retain? Is it a vanity piece or folly? I think Nadine isn't the only one susceptible to 'red mist' here. Isn't it just good business for the owner to realise some value from their creation? That's how most start-ups hope to go - makes a change to sell on at a profit instead of a loss (ref. RBS!) The death of Channel 4 is not the only unavoidable outcome here.

So she did at least one good thing then eh?:rolleyes:

I'm old enough to remember it launching. I don't know the reasoning behind the decision but I presume this was to promote some true competition for ITV, given her general pro-market, de-regulated ideology. As I said above I don't see why non-commercial national interests can't be channelled via BBC - why do we need continuing Government management time dealing with owning multiple broadcasters?

Re: Channel 4 privatisation
 

OK, just one example: "It's a sin". A drama based on gay young men growing up in London in the 80s as the AIDS epidemic was spreading.

No broadcaster would touch it despite Russel T Davies having a good track record of producing successful programs. It took him 5 years and all the other broadcasters rejecting it until Channel 4 took it on where it became their 3rd most successful series since records began and the most binge watched series on All4.

The government don't manage Channel 4 directly - OFCOM set up a board to run it.

Likely buyers of Ch4 would be American, either Discovery or Paramount.

Since it doesn't cost the tax payer anything and supports home grown talent I see no advantage into turning it into another channel like we already have that are more risk averse. I wouldn't want to see more programs like "I'm a Celebrity" which is where Dorries made her name. (She is also a prolific writer of romance fiction)

As a Star Trek fan, Paramount buying it would, perhaps, allow me to see Star Trek: Discovery easier but I'll forego that for keeping the status quo and people in the UK employed.

I'm concerned that everything that seems to work in the UK is being sold off, frequently to foreign buyers, and there isn't much of any value left.

Re: Channel 4 privatisation
 

Seeker, you may be right. I'm more a devil's advocate in this one.

The downside you describe should be worried about. I don't disagree about that.

However, there is also a possible upside that Channel 4 might continue to develop its brand and content (on the basis that some of the stuff Amazon and Netflix have produced probably wouldn't ever have been made by 'conventional' TV either.)

I share your concern about the sale of our quality assets. Where I think we may differ a little is that my worry is less about letting good stuff go but more that we seem to be also showing that we've forgotten how to create more good stuff to replace it. For me, it's not the letting go per se but if we don't replenish then our end points will become the same, and I agree that's a bad situation.

Re: Channel 4 privatisation
 

every public owned channel is doomed. its the future..... and good riddance.

take the BBC. £159 a year to watch utter fukin crap and more brainwashing news. for about £3 more i can get Amazon Prime and Netflix basic which is a lot more content and service than the BBC can ever hope to achieve.

as for Ch4 may it die a death and never come back.. i have not watched that pile of utter shizzt for about 10 years. Ch4 player is the biggest buggy POS that never works that has ever graced the internet.

i dont watch terrestrial tv. its all crap and a big pile of it. i will admit to watching BBC iplayer (recently killing eve) maybe 3 times a year but that in no way accounts for the £159 a year i have to pay to do so.

terrestrial tv was fine when we were all forced to watch it but things have moved on for the better.

Re: Channel 4 privatisation
 

I have to disagree! Nothing but nothing comes close to the David Attenborough series of programmes such as the Living Planet, and the others that the BBC have produced.Something GB and the BBC can be proud of

Re: Channel 4 privatisation
 

ok if you like that sort of thing... its like sports coverage.. ermm no thanks.

i even stopped watching Dr Who, not due to the new Dr but the plots were rubbish.

i like to be entertained not put to sleep with mind numbing repetitive dribble. no offence to Attenborough but once you have seen one of his documentaries you have seen them all. more stuff like Orphan Black and Killing Eve etc.etc and less news and sports and i might just say the BBC was worth the £159 a year... did i say £159 a year.. yes i did.. its extortionate for what you get.

in fact i'm going to cancel my licence.