Channel 4 to be privatised

[all new Phil]

I think it is quite a politically-charge development, however I suspect a lot of the outcry is from people who assume it’s a bad idea because it’s the Tories doing it, without any real discussion of the merits of private vs public ownership.

What I can say however, is that I’ve given it a lot of thought and decided I couldn’t really give a toss either way.

[Andrew]

There are two points in this ongoing debate that I’m not sure are true but are being lost in all the outrage and ranting online

Firstly that the current Channel 4 is full of niche experimental programming that no other commercial broadcaster would touch, which I don’t think is true

And secondly that being a for profit broadcaster means the schedules will be full of wall to wall lowest common dominator programming, which I don’t think is true either. This isn’t the case on either ITV or Channel 5 and they’d be still subject to Ofcom regulations.

That’s not to say I am in favour of this going ahead I should add

[thePineapple]

I think this is so divisive, as the idea of privatisation if so hypothetical in itself; we don't know what for it will take, or who will own it. I find it unlikely, however, that any company buying it will do so for the public's gain, and that's quite concerning. I don't find Channel 4's content stale, or a wasteland - to me it has one of the richest selection of shows of any channel - and I'm not a part of "uber-woke inner London". Most of the people in the industry who have spoken about this (both the verified members in this thread, and those more widely) have warned against it, and that tells me that this isn't a good idea, but a politically-charged decision, the effects of which are are merely collateral damage, for those making this move.

[CantGetIn]

The sun have it on the front page.

[DavidWhitfield]

'Thanks 4 the memories' ... while I enjoy the wordplay, it's a ridiculously melodramatic headline. Reads like an obituary.

You'd think they were announcing that the channel was to close entirely with immediate effect the way some people are going on, rather than the story being a proposed change in ownership.

It's a bit of a hot topic among us enthusiasts but I question whether the change will actually make any discernible difference to the casual viewer, or whether your average punter will actually really care who owns a TV channel at all.

[AJ]

It's sad news, but our government seem hell-bent on selling anything off that they can. That's for a different forum though.

I'd say that Warner Bros Discovery would be the best fit, currently at least. They bought Mediaworks in New Zealand a couple of years back and seem to have started heavily investing in their news operation in particular, whilst adding channels to their line-up.

[CantGetIn]

https://twitter.com/tellymix/status/1511...gr%5Etweet

Let us wait and see what the outcome is.

[Markymark]

'Thanks 4 the memories' ... while I enjoy the wordplay, it's a ridiculously melodramatic headline. Reads like an obituary.

You'd think they were announcing that the channel was to close entirely with immediate effect the way some people are going on, rather than the story being a proposed change in ownership.

It's a bit of a hot topic among us enthusiasts but I question whether the change will actually make any discernible difference to the casual viewer, or whether your average punter will actually really care who owns a TV channel at all.

I've had a couple of friends and family ask me what the sale will actually mean, expecting me to break out into my usual detail I use for such things like 'Why is the local TV news not on HD ?', and 'what's all this about landline phones going ?', but with this I can't seem to muster any inner passion at all.

[johnnyboy]

The state has no business owning a commercial broadcaster. That’s it really.

Although I am lean to the left on personal issues, I lean slightly to the right on economic issues.

I am opposed to the privatisation of Channel 4 and feel distinctly uncomfortable with the BBC losing its licence fee.

It might be unfashionable to say this but I am proud to be British. We have our problems as a county, certainly this government is one of them, but organisations like the BBC and C4 are invaluable in continually developing our shared identity as a people because they're not profit-driven.

Did you see the program in the run-up to the last Olympics about investment in sports following the disaster of 1996 in Atlanta? The lass at the end of the show who ran UK Sport summed it up perfectly when she said people revelled in our sporting triumphs because it gave a feeling of belonging and nationhood. Those two feelings can't be accounted for on a balance sheet or a profit and loss forecast but they're essential in any functioning society.

The BBC and C4 are not perfect but they never will be. But, in my opinion, they're woven into the cultural fabric of the nation and are vital public services as a result. The Arts Council hands out billions of pounds every year to protect and stimulate innovation in our cultural lives. Culture helps us define who we are and understand ourselves better from the Arts Council-funded obscure dance piece in some unknown theatre in Aberdeen right through to programs like It's A Sin and that brilliant documentary with Ellie Simmonds last night.

I have a lot of sympathy for your views. The government does overreach and is intrusive. It shouldn't be in the business of running companies. But I put to you that BBC and C4 are more than just cash-generating entities.

[mdta]

LGBT+ dramas that Channel 4 pioneered will be at risk if commissioning decisions will always be taken with commercial considerations.

Risky and Edgy content the channel exists to provide - will happen much less often without that public service protection.

Thats without mentioning the political reasoning behind it ( as politics is the topic that should not be discussed )

[Inspector Sands]

An ITV bid for Channel 4 is an interesting idea and of course would essentially take things back to pre-93. It would probably lead to a closure of channels, both out of competition concerns and also because of overlaps - I can't see both E4 and ITV2 surviving.

Two things I haven't seen mentioned - firstly it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be sold to another company, there are other ways to privatise.

Secondly some people seem convinced that it will go to but that's not necessarily the case. In fact it's probably jot that attractive to a big multinational media company...

One of the unique things about Channel 4 is that it's never made its own programmes, in fact its not been allowed to. Therefore it owns very little intellectual property - any new owner won't get a massive back-catalogue of programmes or much they can exploit. That's going to make C4 a lot less attractive to buy. In these days of streaming its content that's the king and the production companies own the content

The new owners will get a well established brand which is barely known outside the UK and a good chunk of spectrum, some of which is currently restricted as to what they can do with it.

Doesn't look like that good a deal for a foreign company, especially as there aren't any barriers to enter the UK market if they wanted to

[Whataday]

'Thanks 4 the memories' ... while I enjoy the wordplay, it's a ridiculously melodramatic headline. Reads like an obituary.

You'd think they were announcing that the channel was to close entirely with immediate effect the way some people are going on, rather than the story being a proposed change in ownership.

It's a bit of a hot topic among us enthusiasts but I question whether the change will actually make any discernible difference to the casual viewer, or whether your average punter will actually really care who owns a TV channel at all.

I'd imagine the article is politically motivated in some way. Perhaps the Tories want to push the message that it's a done deal whether we like it or not, or maybe someone within the party/The Sun is opposed to the sale and wants to push the nostalgia button to try and stir up some reaction. Perhaps I'm just an old cynic.

[onetrickypony]

It's not going to be a case of those programmes disappearing though. The new owners can still work with production companies and those programmes that do well for Channel 4 would no doubt continues, such as GBBO and Gogglebox. Wouldn't the new owners have to meet the requirements of public service broadcasting, in the way ITV and C5 have to at the moment?

For me, there's been an major overaction by some at the news.

[adamiow]

Just to be the devil's advocate, I am presuming the Government will adjust the license for Channel 4 as part of the sale to include quotas on some of the risky and edgy content to placate the public/industry that this won't be lost as part of the sale, as well as phase in Channel 4's ability to make its own programmes to reduce the impact on the production companies.

[Markymark]

An ITV bid for Channel 4 is an interesting idea and of course would essentially take things back to pre-93.

I've never got my head around of the 'ownership' of C4 1982-1993. The ITV companies financed it via an IBA levy. In return they were able to sell advertising on C4, and 'keep' the revenue. However, they couldn't influence the programming, well, sort of not, they managed to dump horse racing on there for instance.

Wasn't it a subsidiary company of the IBA ? Except the IBA wasn't a company itself, and regulated C4 ?