4 ms·

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 beca

by 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.
    - shapefrog 5y ago
      It is funding the state not being funded by the state.
    - SirHound 5y ago
      State owned, not state funded. Pretty easy to understand distinction so I assume you're wilfully misrepresenting the situation.
    - rowanajmarshall 5y ago
      Channel 4 owns the capital. Like, Elon Musk owns SpaceX (or at least a controlling share), but he doesn't fund it. SpaceX funds itself, and SpaceX owns that capital.
- Milner08 5y ago
  No, its funded by advertising but owned by the government. That means they have more remit to do what they like (no shareholders like Murdock to appease).
- colourgarden 5y ago
  It is owned by the government but generates all it's own funding via advertising, selling programming slots and selling content overseas (Film4, for example).
agd 5y ago
Boris is letting Nadine Dorries do what she wants as a thank you for her unswerving loyalty. It's incredible someone so incompetent and frankly, stupid, is a cabinet minister.
gadders 5y ago
We already have the BBC - why do we need a second state broadcaster?
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  Well Channel 4 actually critique the government for one… secondarily they produce different content than the BBC which will also soon be privatised.
  - Veen 5y ago
    We must watch different programs on the BBC. I see BBC presenters and journalists criticizing the government every day.
    - lapser 5y ago
      To be fair, it's not up to the BBC to criticise. They should be reporting impartially and let the folks make up their mind.
      - dismantlethesun 5y ago
        What is and isn’t a critique is so subjective. What we really mean is that the BBC is willing to report news that doesn’t fast the government in a good light. Contrast this with day Al Jazeera which never has reports on the wrongdoings of its primary country.
  - makomk 5y ago
    The BBC has been pretty anti-government since about the time of Brexit. It was really obvious in particular during the pandemic, which had many decisions where all options had major downsides - and they spun whichever the government chose as obviously bad, focusing entirely on the downsides of that particular choice, then forgot about all those downsides and switched to spinning the new choice as the bad one the moment the government changed their mind. They also tend to just outright parrot opposition talking points without questioning or challenging them in any way, because that's reserved for stuff the government does. They even managed to outright knowingly lie about how the UK's Covid response compares to other countries in Europe during the early days of the pandemic, and apparently this doesn't violate their standards in any way. They're just not anti-government enough for a lot of people; for example, their journalists don't get to tell readers that every single Covid death was caused by Boris and he should go to jail for criminal manslaughter, even though that's clearly something they back given... certain retweets.
jayflux 5y ago
> The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government. The govt offloaded their stake in Natwest a week ago to raise over £1bn, I think they're just liquidating some assets. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/28/natwest-buys-back-shares-uk-government-rbs https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/28/natwest-buy...
pidster 5y ago
'Money made from the sale will be reinvested in a "creative dividend" to be shared among the TV industry, with some of it earmarked for independent production companies.' Funds from the sale of a publicly owned asset should not just be handed to other commercial organisations. Unless of course, your mates own those organisations, amiright?

by 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.
  - shapefrog 5y ago
    It is funding the state not being funded by the state.
  - SirHound 5y ago
    State owned, not state funded. Pretty easy to understand distinction so I assume you're wilfully misrepresenting the situation.
  - rowanajmarshall 5y ago
    Channel 4 owns the capital. Like, Elon Musk owns SpaceX (or at least a controlling share), but he doesn't fund it. SpaceX funds itself, and SpaceX owns that capital.
Milner08 5y ago
No, its funded by advertising but owned by the government. That means they have more remit to do what they like (no shareholders like Murdock to appease).
colourgarden 5y ago
It is owned by the government but generates all it's own funding via advertising, selling programming slots and selling content overseas (Film4, for example).

agd 5y ago

Boris is letting Nadine Dorries do what she wants as a thank you for her unswerving loyalty. It's incredible someone so incompetent and frankly, stupid, is a cabinet minister.

gadders 5y ago

We already have the BBC - why do we need a second state broadcaster?

andy_ppp 5y ago
Well Channel 4 actually critique the government for one… secondarily they produce different content than the BBC which will also soon be privatised.
- Veen 5y ago
  We must watch different programs on the BBC. I see BBC presenters and journalists criticizing the government every day.
  - lapser 5y ago
    To be fair, it's not up to the BBC to criticise. They should be reporting impartially and let the folks make up their mind.
    - dismantlethesun 5y ago
      What is and isn’t a critique is so subjective. What we really mean is that the BBC is willing to report news that doesn’t fast the government in a good light. Contrast this with day Al Jazeera which never has reports on the wrongdoings of its primary country.
- makomk 5y ago
  The BBC has been pretty anti-government since about the time of Brexit. It was really obvious in particular during the pandemic, which had many decisions where all options had major downsides - and they spun whichever the government chose as obviously bad, focusing entirely on the downsides of that particular choice, then forgot about all those downsides and switched to spinning the new choice as the bad one the moment the government changed their mind. They also tend to just outright parrot opposition talking points without questioning or challenging them in any way, because that's reserved for stuff the government does. They even managed to outright knowingly lie about how the UK's Covid response compares to other countries in Europe during the early days of the pandemic, and apparently this doesn't violate their standards in any way. They're just not anti-government enough for a lot of people; for example, their journalists don't get to tell readers that every single Covid death was caused by Boris and he should go to jail for criminal manslaughter, even though that's clearly something they back given... certain retweets.

jayflux 5y ago

> The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government. The govt offloaded their stake in Natwest a week ago to raise over £1bn, I think they're just liquidating some assets. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/28/natwest-buys-back-shares-uk-government-rbs https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/28/natwest-buy...

pidster 5y ago

'Money made from the sale will be reinvested in a "creative dividend" to be shared among the TV industry, with some of it earmarked for independent production companies.' Funds from the sale of a publicly owned asset should not just be handed to other commercial organisations. Unless of course, your mates own those organisations, amiright?