Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
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
The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government.
For those outside of the UK, it has been a disaster.
So, it's already private?
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.
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.
They are both editorially and operationally independent from the government (which is why this government hates both of them).
Even Australia with only 25 million has two, and IMO it's nowhere near enough. Ireland has two.
Germany has twelve and through those also participates in two transnational public media organisation. Much of it is a purposeful legacy of the allied occupation because one of the earliest things Hitler did is consolidating all broadcasting.
Why you ask have more than one public media organisation? Because you ensure diversity of opinion, create a resilient network, create specialities, ensure regional representation, provide funding and funding options, provide diversity in all manners, more independence from government interventions, etc., etc.
Spain has 13.
The public service remit is vital.
And don't use the term 'broadcaster' for the concept because it limits their role. It might be much of what they do, but think video game funder, social media, keeper of historical heritage, open-source development, educational platform, trusted source of facts (as in Wikipedia), diplomatic tool, amplifier of diversity in all aspects, keeper of audio-visual libraries ... the possibilities are endless.
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-buy...
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?
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.
Absolutely correct and totally ridiculous, although they do make the distinction of calling these ads 'promotional messages'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This decision is brain-dead and I would not be surprised if it dies a death in the lords or commons.
If you donate 20k to the party you can have yourself a multi billion pound media empire and a knighthood all of your own.
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.
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.
Errr, how is BBC4 going to be a public service broadcaster at all if it becomes private?
Why was there lead in gas, why was cigarette advertising so huge, etc etc.
Perhaps the thing to take from this is that people want to watch bizarre stuff?
Bring back Eurotrash I say !!! ;-)
When the government is "aligned" with the same media moguls who control the media (TV, newspapers) you have a huge problem for a democracy. Channel 4 was one of the few entities in the UK that stood out from that trend. In the current context it is madness to privatise one of the last remaining independent news sources in the UK.
Some would argue that the media landscape in the US isn't in the best shape either.
State owned media can be a more direct path.
So like in the USA then?
But that's not the way that things like this work. C4 produces some programming that no other broadcaster in the UK does. The programmes may not be "everything for everyone", but there is definitely something for everyone, and just about everything they've ever made is still available to watch.
It will not remain that way if it is privately owned. There's too much pressure to serve shareholder interests and make everything profitable. Not everything can turn a profit, and "the market" doesn't solve all issues - the arts in particular being a case in point.
Dorries has always struck me as being pretty incompetent and not someone you would label as a deep thinker. She's obsessed with the destruction of the BBC, and C4 is clearly an easier target as most people don't even know that it is currently publically owned.
This is the perfect example of why I don’t like the “serve shareholder interests” line of reasoning. The state is the shareholder, and they their own interests being served.
The current administration is probably less profit-driven than a hypothetical private one, but there’s still somebody at the helm.
The people own the state,
> their interests being served
Indeed privatisation could be seen as anti-democratic; the motivation to sell it off (to sympathetic parties?) is because it is critical of your government or you want to maintain control of the media once you are voted out of power.
The state (not the government!) might own the company, but it is run by an independent board which is (or is supposed to be) totally independent from the sitting government.
Anecdotally, in my country the public broadcaster is not only by far the highest quality channel but also the one that is most consistently being a nuisance to people in power.
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.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-f...
Channel 4 is funded by advertising, and by its for-profit ventures like Film 4, which is one of the production companies for famous movies like "12 Years A Slave".
Selling off these natural monopolies to a private investor who will then demand extra profits to do roughly the same thing and be an intractable obstacle to any political changes is Tory policy but it does not make any actual economic sense it's purely ideological.