17 ms·

Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

52 points by jonjomckay 5y ago

a_humean 5y ago
Nadine Dorries... I mean I don't know what I can say that is polite language. She should not be a minster let alone a cabinet minister. This decision is brain-dead and I would not be surprised if it dies a death in the lords or commons.
Zhyl 5y ago
From a Hackernews point of view the most relevant part of this will be their video distribution platform 'All4' (previously '4 On Demand'). All4 is one of the buggiest platforms of all of the big channels. The others may be lacking in features but even Channel 5 has a pretty smooth user experience. All4 consistently crashes, shows ads but then no programme, doesn't show programmes in its search results, doesn't keep track of where the viewer is in an episode, doesn't keep track of if a user has finished an episode, fails to load the next episode. The subscription service that is supposed to not show ads shows ads, the platform doesn't work on Linux, the app doesn't download things successfully for offline viewing consistently and a smorgasbord of other paper-cut issues that make it generally a drag to have to use. Privatisation, despite other drawbacks, would likely mean that they could more handily compete in the on-demand space. They have an enviable catalogue, a niche within the British market and a tech-savvy audience that they are probably already losing to other streaming services that they need to overhaul if they want to win back.
- djaychela 5y ago
  Not had any of those issues for me for -years-. There were definitely issues many years ago, but I find All4 (both on computer and smart TV) to work very well, remembering pretty much exactly where I left off across programs and platforms.
- scandox 5y ago
  I use All4 a lot and never had a single issue with it. I use it in the Browser. Is there any data to support it being "buggiest"?
  - Zhyl 5y ago
    Only anecdata. But this is experience from using 4oD and All4 with comparison to iPlayer for the last 12 years. The problems described above were so bad on Roku that I had a '3 strike' policy - if the stream failed 3 times in one sitting and forced me to start the show again and sit through ads then I'd leave All4 and watch another service. Three strikes would be met weekly. I contacted support on multiple occasions but they weren't helpful. I haven't had anywhere near the same experience, even using self hosted like Plex and Jellyfin.
- dazc 5y ago
  > The subscription service that is supposed to not show ads shows ads.. Absolutely correct and totally ridiculous, although they do make the distinction of calling these ads 'promotional messages'.
- thorin 5y ago
  Anecdotally, the All4 app works fine on my phone and over chromecast. The biggest media app I've had issues with is the Virgin Radio app. I guess one of the reasons behind this is the Ch4 news which I feel is excellent but is generally very critical of almost everyone.
- julian55 5y ago
  All4 has always worked fine for me, I find Channel 5 the least reliable of UK TV channels for streaming. Having said that, I usually record interesting Channel 4 programmes so I can skip the ads!
- andrepd 5y ago
  Yes, yet more public assets are being sold off to private concerns, this time for doing things the current government doesn't like, but look at the positive side: their online streaming might become less buggy /s
  - Zhyl 5y ago
    I was deliberately not talking about the political aspect of this. I have my own views, but this is a technical forum and I thought I would highlight the technical implications of this decision for those that might not be familiar with them - notably people not from the UK.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      Fair enough
- pdpi 5y ago
  It’s hard to believe channel 4 needs to be privatised in order to get better at streaming. All you need to do is look at BBC iPlayer, which is miles better.
  - traceroute66 5y ago
    > BBC iPlayer, which is miles better iPlayer and "miles better" in the same phrase, really ? iPlayer has the most ludicrously useless interface. Low hanging fruit example: looking up things based on the schedule ? Forget about it. For clarity I'm not saying Channel 4 is the best, but at least they cover all the blatantly obvious low-hanging fruit that the BBC singularly fails to do.
    - sega_sai 5y ago
      I certainly prefer iPlayer interface to Netflix's one.
      - traceroute66 5y ago
        > I certainly prefer iPlayer interface to Netflix's one. There is a lot I could forgive about the Netflix interface IF their search worked in a meaningful way. But Neflix search interface is utter trash, I'm sorry but it is. And that sours the rest of the UI/UX. Case in point: If I search for "X language films" AND I select the appropriate option from the list that appears on the left (i.e. "X films & tv"), then I expect the list that is presented to be a list of films & tv in the language selected. Instead what I get is a few films in that language, and then I get a bunch of Hollywood and other stuff.
- deadbunny 4y ago
  Do we need private companies to make top tier streaming services? The BBC iPlayer is pretty good and pretty open, much more open (technicaly speaking) than something like Netflix.
- jscholes 4y ago
  > All4 is one of the buggiest platforms of all of the big channels. Interesting viewpoint. While using the service on iOS, with an active ad-free subscription, I haven't noticed any of the issues you mention. Other than sponsorship unfortunately still being required for a small subset of programming. But other than that, the app has been a pleasure to use, far more so than the streaming app from Channel 5 which seeks my position each time I press the Pause button. I now generally rate the UX of All4 above the BBC iPlayer, which was the gold standard for a while.
attackroll 5y ago
TIL Channel 4 was previously publicly owned.
- rkachowski 5y ago
  I was also completely unaware of this, it gives past controversies around Brass Eye and other edgy programming a different light.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    It was created specifically under Thatcher to serve otherwise under-served audiences, and that inevitably means it's controversial, because if what it showed was not controversial it'd be on one of the channels all those well-served audiences are watching. It's most reasonably criticised for making too "easy" controversial choices, not really challenging for an audience, not really telling anybody anything they didn't know, just going for outrage - something like let's show people having sexual intercourse on TV but with medics explaining what's going on, rather than satire like Brass Eye that demands a bit more of the audience. So for example Queer As Folk, now considered a pretty tame TV series (and indeed since rebooted for a wider audience) about young gay characters in Manchester was sufficiently controversial when Channel 4 first aired it that right wing newspapers of course insisted it should be banned. Arguably this was "too safe" but on the other hand it's not as though other broadcasters were doing this at the time.
stuaxo 5y ago
This is vandalism. Channel 4 uses no government money and has a remit to show programming other channels cannot. The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  Honestly, considering what the goverment is doing, I think there needs to be real questions asked about who are they trying to serve. It doesn't really seem like it's the British public.
  - LightG 5y ago
    That could be a decent summary of the last decade under the current government. For those outside of the UK, it has been a disaster.
- krona 5y ago
  > Channel 4 uses no government money So, it's already private?
  - xnorswap 5y ago
    No, it's owned by the government but doesn't take any government funding.
    - djbebs 5y ago
      Who owns the capital? If it's the government, then yes, it's state funded even if it doesn't require constant capital injections
      - onion2k 5y ago
        Can you really call something 'state funded' if it receives no funds from the state? I can't see any justification for that definition.
      - 5y ago
gpmcadam 5y ago
Its odd in a democracy in 2022 that a government should own a media/news organisation. If the argument that this is profitable is true, then it should be capable of carrying on its endeavours privately with no issue whatsoever.
- secretsatan 5y ago
  Yay! Cos all privatised channels that show high brow or educational programming have maintained their standards of quality and don't just show endless shows about ufos and nazis
  - gpmcadam 5y ago
    Clearly you’ve never seen some of the bizarre stuff that C4 had put out over the years then? Perhaps the thing to take from this is that people want to watch bizarre stuff?
    - traceroute66 5y ago
      > Clearly you’ve never seen some of the bizarre stuff that C4 had put out over the years then? Bring back Eurotrash I say !!! ;-)
      - Veen 5y ago
        That show was certainly an eye-opener for 12-year-old me.
  - LightG 5y ago
    That sh!t is bizarre ... why does that happen?
    - andrepd 5y ago
      They make more money that actual quality programming. Why was there lead in gas, why was cigarette advertising so huge, etc etc.
doublerabbit 5y ago
That's another no-brainer to why I shouldn't pay for a TV License. I'm not going to support an organisation which cuts off my Scottish PM, refuses air importance. Produces poor quality entertainment and now wanting to sell a decent broadcaster from the UK. No seriously, to the down-voters; in the UK you have to pay a TV license. I find the quality of BBC programming really poor. C4 was decent, but if the government is going to sell to a media empire, I do not want to give further money to the government. And I am aware channel four does not receive money from the TV License but they are still owned by the British Government.
- te_chris 5y ago
  They don’t receive license fee funding
  - doublerabbit 5y ago
    They do not receive funding from the TV license. However channel four is owned by the British Government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments
- Veen 5y ago
  > in the UK you have to pay a TV license You have to only if you watch broadcast TV, live TV, or use iPlayer. If you're not doing any of those things, then not paying isn't really a boycott. On the other hand, if you are doing them, then you're likely to get fined for it eventually.
  - doublerabbit 5y ago
    > You have to only if you watch broadcast TV, live TV, or use iPlayer. If you're not doing any of those things, then not paying isn't really a boycott. I disagree by not paying the yearly TV sub, they are not getting my yearly sum of money via protest. No, I don't do any of that, if the content was worth watching I would be paying for it.
d--b 5y ago
> Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said: "Channel 4 rightly holds a cherished place in British life and I want that to remain the case. I have come to the conclusion that government ownership is holding Channel 4 back from competing against streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon. A change of ownership will give Channel 4 the tools and freedom to flourish and thrive as a public service broadcaster long into the future." Errr, how is BBC4 going to be a public service broadcaster at all if it becomes private?
- Lio 5y ago
  FYI Channel 4 is a completely separate company to the BBC and BBC4.
- timthorn 5y ago
  The broadcasting licence it is issued with will contain conditions describing content it must produce. For example, it might say that it must broadcast 15h of original news per week, or commission 20% of its output as documentary programmes.
FerretFred 5y ago
"Channel 4 called it "disappointing" that ministers had made their decision despite "significant public interest concerns" over privatisation" This is what our elected representatives do though, and it never ends well. One day we'll actually elect someone with a brain, but it may not be in my lifetime.
- kalleboo 5y ago
  I'm sure they have brains, they're just serving someone other than the public
lapser 5y ago
What's really interesting is how cheap it is being sold for. The current figure being given is "around" £1 billion, which seems like low ball offer for the third biggest broadcasting company in the UK.
- kalleboo 5y ago
  My experiences are mostly from other countries but it seems whenever the government sells something off it's always sold way under value...
  - shapefrog 5y ago
    Isnt this how oligarchs are created - buying state owned assets at massively knocked down prices from their friends in government? If you donate 20k to the party you can have yourself a multi billion pound media empire and a knighthood all of your own.
    - colourgarden 5y ago
      See Evgeny Lebedev. I imagine the odds on him being the successful bidder for Channel 4 are extremely slim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev
- deadbunny 4y ago
  That's what the Tories do. Sell the country's silverware at a discount to their mates. See British Gas, British Telecom, The Royal Mail, orth Sea drilling rights etc...
cirrus-clouds 5y ago
For people outside the UK, Channel 4 is a national broadcaster in the UK with a remit to cater to minority interests and under-deserved audiences - as well as producing more popular content. Their funding comes from advertising - a unique situation which means they are a public service broadcast (PSB) who does not rely on an a license fee or public funding. This means Channel 4 content runs the gamut from trashy or 'low-brow' TV programming to more serious documentaries, high-end drama, arts and serious investigation reporting. The more 'popular' or 'low brow' programming brings in advertising to help fund the less popular, more specialised content. The plan to privatise Channel 4 will kill much of the public service programming. The Government Minister that oversees Channel 4 is Nadine Dorries ("Culture Secretary"). She is so clueless, she was even unaware that Channel 4 was not publicly-funded when previously interviewed by other politicians. Also, Channel 4 News is often less 'timid' than BBC News when investigating government actions. In a 2019 speech, the Channel 4 News boss said the media have the right to call politicians 'liars'. That can’t have been popular with the current Government (which enjoys the support of most national newspapers in the UK). Here is an example of a news interview of a government minister from Channel 4 News. You are unlikely to find something similar on BBC News: Michael Gove interview on truth, lies and Brexit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO2zT9-B2X4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO2zT9-B2X4
Terry_Roll 5y ago
I cant decide if this is a good thing or not. State broadcasters like the BBC are tied to conditions not normally imposed on privately owned broadcasters. The BBC has probably the worlds best TV archive in the world, they did alot of the digitisation down at BBC Maida Vale. I wonder when looking at Britbox if this is a backdoor/stealth way for Channel 4 to access & commercialise BBC archives when the BBC cant really commercialise its archive, and once that threshhold is crossed there is no going back unlike C4 doing it. Sure the BBC sells stuff abroad like Topgear when it was good, the Clarkson, May & Hammond years but how do you get out of a tight contract without penalty other than get sacked for hitting someone and then earn massively more working for Amazon, the BBC didnt earn their true potential in commercial ventures. David Attenborough's stuff is a joint venture with US documentary channels and is now more a voice over role with an international team than a wholey complete BBC venture. But Channel 4 & Film4 have also invested in some pretty good films to rival Hollywood output, so this might be a good thing for Channel 4 & Film 4, ____if____ they are tied up together in this privitisation. Does anyone know? Even Tory Chancellor George Osbourne got a special mention in one of the Star Wars film credits, because of the tax perks the Govt gave to help lure Hollywood overseas to foreign studio's & locations, so I dont think this will be a bad thing especially with China investing heavily in the UK.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Channel 4 owns Film 4, both the TV channel and the film production company of the same name.
  - Terry_Roll 4y ago
    Should make for an interesting float. I rate Film 4.

52 points by jonjomckay 5y ago

Nadine Dorries... I mean I don't know what I can say that is polite language. She should not be a minster let alone a cabinet minister. This decision is brain-dead and I would not be surprised if it dies a death in the lords or commons.

Zhyl 5y ago

From a Hackernews point of view the most relevant part of this will be their video distribution platform 'All4' (previously '4 On Demand'). All4 is one of the buggiest platforms of all of the big channels. The others may be lacking in features but even Channel 5 has a pretty smooth user experience. All4 consistently crashes, shows ads but then no programme, doesn't show programmes in its search results, doesn't keep track of where the viewer is in an episode, doesn't keep track of if a user has finished an episode, fails to load the next episode. The subscription service that is supposed to not show ads shows ads, the platform doesn't work on Linux, the app doesn't download things successfully for offline viewing consistently and a smorgasbord of other paper-cut issues that make it generally a drag to have to use. Privatisation, despite other drawbacks, would likely mean that they could more handily compete in the on-demand space. They have an enviable catalogue, a niche within the British market and a tech-savvy audience that they are probably already losing to other streaming services that they need to overhaul if they want to win back.

djaychela 5y ago
Not had any of those issues for me for -years-. There were definitely issues many years ago, but I find All4 (both on computer and smart TV) to work very well, remembering pretty much exactly where I left off across programs and platforms.
scandox 5y ago
I use All4 a lot and never had a single issue with it. I use it in the Browser. Is there any data to support it being "buggiest"?
- Zhyl 5y ago
  Only anecdata. But this is experience from using 4oD and All4 with comparison to iPlayer for the last 12 years. The problems described above were so bad on Roku that I had a '3 strike' policy - if the stream failed 3 times in one sitting and forced me to start the show again and sit through ads then I'd leave All4 and watch another service. Three strikes would be met weekly. I contacted support on multiple occasions but they weren't helpful. I haven't had anywhere near the same experience, even using self hosted like Plex and Jellyfin.
dazc 5y ago
> The subscription service that is supposed to not show ads shows ads.. Absolutely correct and totally ridiculous, although they do make the distinction of calling these ads 'promotional messages'.
thorin 5y ago
Anecdotally, the All4 app works fine on my phone and over chromecast. The biggest media app I've had issues with is the Virgin Radio app. I guess one of the reasons behind this is the Ch4 news which I feel is excellent but is generally very critical of almost everyone.
julian55 5y ago
All4 has always worked fine for me, I find Channel 5 the least reliable of UK TV channels for streaming. Having said that, I usually record interesting Channel 4 programmes so I can skip the ads!
andrepd 5y ago
Yes, yet more public assets are being sold off to private concerns, this time for doing things the current government doesn't like, but look at the positive side: their online streaming might become less buggy /s
- Zhyl 5y ago
  I was deliberately not talking about the political aspect of this. I have my own views, but this is a technical forum and I thought I would highlight the technical implications of this decision for those that might not be familiar with them - notably people not from the UK.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    Fair enough
pdpi 5y ago
It’s hard to believe channel 4 needs to be privatised in order to get better at streaming. All you need to do is look at BBC iPlayer, which is miles better.
- traceroute66 5y ago
  > BBC iPlayer, which is miles better iPlayer and "miles better" in the same phrase, really ? iPlayer has the most ludicrously useless interface. Low hanging fruit example: looking up things based on the schedule ? Forget about it. For clarity I'm not saying Channel 4 is the best, but at least they cover all the blatantly obvious low-hanging fruit that the BBC singularly fails to do.
  - sega_sai 5y ago
    I certainly prefer iPlayer interface to Netflix's one.
    - traceroute66 5y ago
      > I certainly prefer iPlayer interface to Netflix's one. There is a lot I could forgive about the Netflix interface IF their search worked in a meaningful way. But Neflix search interface is utter trash, I'm sorry but it is. And that sours the rest of the UI/UX. Case in point: If I search for "X language films" AND I select the appropriate option from the list that appears on the left (i.e. "X films & tv"), then I expect the list that is presented to be a list of films & tv in the language selected. Instead what I get is a few films in that language, and then I get a bunch of Hollywood and other stuff.
deadbunny 4y ago
Do we need private companies to make top tier streaming services? The BBC iPlayer is pretty good and pretty open, much more open (technicaly speaking) than something like Netflix.
jscholes 4y ago
> All4 is one of the buggiest platforms of all of the big channels. Interesting viewpoint. While using the service on iOS, with an active ad-free subscription, I haven't noticed any of the issues you mention. Other than sponsorship unfortunately still being required for a small subset of programming. But other than that, the app has been a pleasure to use, far more so than the streaming app from Channel 5 which seeks my position each time I press the Pause button. I now generally rate the UX of All4 above the BBC iPlayer, which was the gold standard for a while.

attackroll 5y ago

TIL Channel 4 was previously publicly owned.

rkachowski 5y ago
I was also completely unaware of this, it gives past controversies around Brass Eye and other edgy programming a different light.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  It was created specifically under Thatcher to serve otherwise under-served audiences, and that inevitably means it's controversial, because if what it showed was not controversial it'd be on one of the channels all those well-served audiences are watching. It's most reasonably criticised for making too "easy" controversial choices, not really challenging for an audience, not really telling anybody anything they didn't know, just going for outrage - something like let's show people having sexual intercourse on TV but with medics explaining what's going on, rather than satire like Brass Eye that demands a bit more of the audience. So for example Queer As Folk, now considered a pretty tame TV series (and indeed since rebooted for a wider audience) about young gay characters in Manchester was sufficiently controversial when Channel 4 first aired it that right wing newspapers of course insisted it should be banned. Arguably this was "too safe" but on the other hand it's not as though other broadcasters were doing this at the time.

stuaxo 5y ago

This is vandalism. Channel 4 uses no government money and has a remit to show programming other channels cannot. The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government.

that_guy_iain 5y ago
Honestly, considering what the goverment is doing, I think there needs to be real questions asked about who are they trying to serve. It doesn't really seem like it's the British public.
- LightG 5y ago
  That could be a decent summary of the last decade under the current government. For those outside of the UK, it has been a disaster.
krona 5y ago
> Channel 4 uses no government money So, it's already private?
- xnorswap 5y ago
  No, it's owned by the government but doesn't take any government funding.
  - djbebs 5y ago
    Who owns the capital? If it's the government, then yes, it's state funded even if it doesn't require constant capital injections
    - onion2k 5y ago
      Can you really call something 'state funded' if it receives no funds from the state? I can't see any justification for that definition.
    - 5y ago

gpmcadam 5y ago

Its odd in a democracy in 2022 that a government should own a media/news organisation. If the argument that this is profitable is true, then it should be capable of carrying on its endeavours privately with no issue whatsoever.

secretsatan 5y ago
Yay! Cos all privatised channels that show high brow or educational programming have maintained their standards of quality and don't just show endless shows about ufos and nazis
- gpmcadam 5y ago
  Clearly you’ve never seen some of the bizarre stuff that C4 had put out over the years then? Perhaps the thing to take from this is that people want to watch bizarre stuff?
  - traceroute66 5y ago
    > Clearly you’ve never seen some of the bizarre stuff that C4 had put out over the years then? Bring back Eurotrash I say !!! ;-)
    - Veen 5y ago
      That show was certainly an eye-opener for 12-year-old me.
- LightG 5y ago
  That sh!t is bizarre ... why does that happen?
  - andrepd 5y ago
    They make more money that actual quality programming. Why was there lead in gas, why was cigarette advertising so huge, etc etc.

doublerabbit 5y ago

That's another no-brainer to why I shouldn't pay for a TV License. I'm not going to support an organisation which cuts off my Scottish PM, refuses air importance. Produces poor quality entertainment and now wanting to sell a decent broadcaster from the UK. No seriously, to the down-voters; in the UK you have to pay a TV license. I find the quality of BBC programming really poor. C4 was decent, but if the government is going to sell to a media empire, I do not want to give further money to the government. And I am aware channel four does not receive money from the TV License but they are still owned by the British Government.

te_chris 5y ago
They don’t receive license fee funding
- doublerabbit 5y ago
  They do not receive funding from the TV license. However channel four is owned by the British Government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments
Veen 5y ago
> in the UK you have to pay a TV license You have to only if you watch broadcast TV, live TV, or use iPlayer. If you're not doing any of those things, then not paying isn't really a boycott. On the other hand, if you are doing them, then you're likely to get fined for it eventually.
- doublerabbit 5y ago
  > You have to only if you watch broadcast TV, live TV, or use iPlayer. If you're not doing any of those things, then not paying isn't really a boycott. I disagree by not paying the yearly TV sub, they are not getting my yearly sum of money via protest. No, I don't do any of that, if the content was worth watching I would be paying for it.

d--b 5y ago

> Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said: "Channel 4 rightly holds a cherished place in British life and I want that to remain the case. I have come to the conclusion that government ownership is holding Channel 4 back from competing against streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon. A change of ownership will give Channel 4 the tools and freedom to flourish and thrive as a public service broadcaster long into the future." Errr, how is BBC4 going to be a public service broadcaster at all if it becomes private?

Lio 5y ago
FYI Channel 4 is a completely separate company to the BBC and BBC4.
timthorn 5y ago
The broadcasting licence it is issued with will contain conditions describing content it must produce. For example, it might say that it must broadcast 15h of original news per week, or commission 20% of its output as documentary programmes.

FerretFred 5y ago

"Channel 4 called it "disappointing" that ministers had made their decision despite "significant public interest concerns" over privatisation" This is what our elected representatives do though, and it never ends well. One day we'll actually elect someone with a brain, but it may not be in my lifetime.

kalleboo 5y ago
I'm sure they have brains, they're just serving someone other than the public

lapser 5y ago

What's really interesting is how cheap it is being sold for. The current figure being given is "around" £1 billion, which seems like low ball offer for the third biggest broadcasting company in the UK.

kalleboo 5y ago
My experiences are mostly from other countries but it seems whenever the government sells something off it's always sold way under value...
- shapefrog 5y ago
  Isnt this how oligarchs are created - buying state owned assets at massively knocked down prices from their friends in government? If you donate 20k to the party you can have yourself a multi billion pound media empire and a knighthood all of your own.
  - colourgarden 5y ago
    See Evgeny Lebedev. I imagine the odds on him being the successful bidder for Channel 4 are extremely slim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev
deadbunny 4y ago
That's what the Tories do. Sell the country's silverware at a discount to their mates. See British Gas, British Telecom, The Royal Mail, orth Sea drilling rights etc...

cirrus-clouds 5y ago

For people outside the UK, Channel 4 is a national broadcaster in the UK with a remit to cater to minority interests and under-deserved audiences - as well as producing more popular content. Their funding comes from advertising - a unique situation which means they are a public service broadcast (PSB) who does not rely on an a license fee or public funding. This means Channel 4 content runs the gamut from trashy or 'low-brow' TV programming to more serious documentaries, high-end drama, arts and serious investigation reporting. The more 'popular' or 'low brow' programming brings in advertising to help fund the less popular, more specialised content. The plan to privatise Channel 4 will kill much of the public service programming. The Government Minister that oversees Channel 4 is Nadine Dorries ("Culture Secretary"). She is so clueless, she was even unaware that Channel 4 was not publicly-funded when previously interviewed by other politicians. Also, Channel 4 News is often less 'timid' than BBC News when investigating government actions. In a 2019 speech, the Channel 4 News boss said the media have the right to call politicians 'liars'. That can’t have been popular with the current Government (which enjoys the support of most national newspapers in the UK). Here is an example of a news interview of a government minister from Channel 4 News. You are unlikely to find something similar on BBC News: Michael Gove interview on truth, lies and Brexit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO2zT9-B2X4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO2zT9-B2X4

Terry_Roll 5y ago

I cant decide if this is a good thing or not. State broadcasters like the BBC are tied to conditions not normally imposed on privately owned broadcasters. The BBC has probably the worlds best TV archive in the world, they did alot of the digitisation down at BBC Maida Vale. I wonder when looking at Britbox if this is a backdoor/stealth way for Channel 4 to access & commercialise BBC archives when the BBC cant really commercialise its archive, and once that threshhold is crossed there is no going back unlike C4 doing it. Sure the BBC sells stuff abroad like Topgear when it was good, the Clarkson, May & Hammond years but how do you get out of a tight contract without penalty other than get sacked for hitting someone and then earn massively more working for Amazon, the BBC didnt earn their true potential in commercial ventures. David Attenborough's stuff is a joint venture with US documentary channels and is now more a voice over role with an international team than a wholey complete BBC venture. But Channel 4 & Film4 have also invested in some pretty good films to rival Hollywood output, so this might be a good thing for Channel 4 & Film 4, ____if____ they are tied up together in this privitisation. Does anyone know? Even Tory Chancellor George Osbourne got a special mention in one of the Star Wars film credits, because of the tax perks the Govt gave to help lure Hollywood overseas to foreign studio's & locations, so I dont think this will be a bad thing especially with China investing heavily in the UK.

tialaramex 5y ago
Channel 4 owns Film 4, both the TV channel and the film production company of the same name.
- Terry_Roll 4y ago
  Should make for an interesting float. I rate Film 4.