Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36118135)

Do people still watch Channel 4?

What's it like? . . in case I'm missing something of interest.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118133)

According to today’s Telegraph online, a government announcement is expected shortly confirming that Channel 4 is to be put up for salenext year. Ostensibly, this is to give access to increased financial resources to fund more independent commissions.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118173)

Love to see the Business Case ostensibly behind this proposed sell-off.

In order to arrive at a conclusion, normally people would have had to see evidence, weigh arguments, consider pro & cons and decide on best path forward - normally documented and scored against an agreed requirements list; I wonder if this will be available to MPs when they have a vote on this?

It’s stated that by Nadine Dorries that



So we’re going to move from a company that costs the viewers and the taxpayers nothing, and that has in it’s remit to purchase locally produced programmes, to a company that will compete with Netflix which costs just under £16 per month, had £18 billion of debt, and makes most of its programmes in the USA?

It would be interesting to see the evidence behind the statement "government ownership is holding Channel 4 back", considering the Government has no input in how C4 is run (they appoint the Board, but don’t have day to day oversight - or is she implying that the Government appointees are holding C4 back?).

I wonder if that is based in fact as much as one of Dorries recent statements, which was that C4 was in receipt of public money*?

*spoiler alert - it isn’t…

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118173)

Love to see the Business Case ostensibly behind this proposed sell-off.

In order to arrive at a conclusion, normally people would have had to see evidence, weigh arguments, consider pro & cons and decide on best path forward - normally documented and scored against an agreed requirements list; I wonder if this will be available to MPs when they have a vote on this?

It’s stated that by Nadine Dorries that



So we’re going to move from a company that costs the viewers and the taxpayers nothing, and that has in it’s remit to purchase locally produced programmes, to a company that will compete with Netflix which costs just under £16 per month, had £18 billion of debt, and makes most of its programmes in the USA?

It would be interesting to see the evidence behind the statement "government ownership is holding Channel 4 back", considering the Government has no input in how C4 is run (they appoint the Board, but don’t have day to day oversight - or is she implying that the Government appointees are holding C4 back?).

I wonder if that is based in fact as much as one of Dorries recent statements, which was that C4 was in receipt of public money*?

*spoiler alert - it isn’t…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118175)

Without too many restrictions being imposed by government, this channel could be transformed with the increased cash that it would be able to raise by not being in public ownership. Only then, in the right ownership, could we be free of these mundane cookery, home makeover, house selling shows and the rest.

Before you jump to conclusions about the value of Channel 4, it might be worthwhile to look at the schedules for the week and work out exactly how many of the programmes on the channel you are actually watching. You might be surprised. Unpleasantly, I would wager.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118175)

I think you only have to look at Channel 4’s schedules to see the reason for the sell-off. They started off well in the beginning all those years ago, and they started off looking quite different, but sadly the schedules are now pretty mundane.

Without too many restrictions being imposed by government, this channel could be transformed with the increased cash that it would be able to raise by not being in public ownership. Only then, in the right ownership, could we be free of these mundane cookery, home makeover, house selling shows and the rest.

Before you jump to conclusions about the value of Channel 4, it might be worthwhile to look at the schedules for the week and work out exactly how many of the programmes on the channel you are actually watching. You might be surprised. Unpleasantly, I would wager.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118195)

You appear to have miraculously avoided commenting on any of the points I made in my post…

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118195)

You appear to have miraculously avoided commenting on any of the points I made in my post…

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 36118191)

All broadcasters will make 'mundane cookery, home makeover, house selling shows'. It's cheap to produce, is popular enough that it's worth making, and for ad funded broadcasters brings ad revenue in along with the viewers.

By making those shows, Channel 4 gets the profits to reinvest in the shows that profit-for-shareholders commercial broadcasters don't touch with barge pole.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118208)

I noted the points you made, but they weren’t questions for me to answer. I don’t speak for Nadine or anyone else in government. I notice you didn’t answer my questions either..

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------



Where are those shows?

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

To be fair, Channel 4 has a lot of new series in prime time starting next week, but I wouldn’t call them unique. They could have appeared on any channel, frankly.

A Lake District Farm Shop
Inside the Superbrands
SAS: Who Dares Wins
The Cane Field Killings (yes, I will watch that one)
Dispatches
Travel Man
Derry Girls
Hullraisers
Grand Designs
Naked Attraction’s Best Naughty Bits (oh, please!
Luxury Homes & Gardens for Less
Taskmaster
Hotel Chocolate at Easter

So which of those, watchable though most of them might be, can be described as ‘unique’’? You can find many similar programmes on Sky, and they are not great, frankly.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118202)

The consultation remit was

https://researchbriefings.files.parl...0/CBP-9280.pdf

I am sure we will be shown these views and evidence, and that they back up the Government’s proposal to privatise C4, otherwise what was the point of the time, effort, and costs involved in the consultation?

Also in the briefing above were the results of a previous report on C4 undertaken in 2016, which stated

The full remit was

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36118211)

The shows in that list that I recognise are all shows that were only ever likely to have been made by Channel 4. You undermine your argument somewhat by invoking Sky, which is of course behind a paywall and therefore not providing the public service broadcasting that Channel 4’s defenders claim is at risk from privatisation.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118212)

In a fast changing industry, do you think the views expressed six years ago are still relevant? Wasn’t that about the time Ofcom was still convinced that Project Kangaroo was irrelevant?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118208)

Where are those shows?

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36118222)

Channel 4 News is still the best news programme compared to the BBC,ITV,Sky and Channel 5 offerings.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118208)

I noted the points you made, but they weren’t questions for me to answer. I don’t speak for Nadine or anyone else in government. I notice you didn’t answer my questions either..

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:03 ----------



Where are those shows?

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

To be fair, Channel 4 has a lot of new series in prime time starting next week, but I wouldn’t call them unique. They could have appeared on any channel, frankly.

A Lake District Farm Shop
Inside the Superbrands
SAS: Who Dares Wins
The Cane Field Killings (yes, I will watch that one)
Dispatches
Travel Man
Derry Girls
Hullraisers
Grand Designs
Naked Attraction’s Best Naughty Bits (oh, please!
Luxury Homes & Gardens for Less
Taskmaster
Hotel Chocolate at Easter

So which of those, watchable though most of them might be, can be described as ‘unique’’? You can find many similar programmes on Sky, and they are not great, frankly.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36118228)

Well it's nearly 5 years since you started the end of linear TV is nigh thread so not long to go to see how (ir)relevant your views are six years on, because remember it's a fast changing industry ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118247)

And if you open your eyes, it’s all coming true. Look how things have changed in just five years.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118212)

In a fast changing industry, do you think the views expressed six years ago are still relevant? Wasn’t that about the time Ofcom was still convinced that Project Kangaroo was irrelevant?

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ----------



Channel 5 seems to be doing all right, and it’s not behind a paywall.

I really don’t think there is any merit behind that claim that such programmes were never likely to be made by other companies. I don’t see any evidence for that, but of course I respect that you are entitled to your opinion.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118254)

How about from less than a year ago (from my previous post link)

Like most reasonable people, I would like to see the analysis and evidence behind this decision, and validate if the decision proposed meets the criteria set out in the remit.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118254)

How about from less than a year ago (from my previous post link)

Quote:

Alex Mahon and Charles Gurassa (Channel 4 Chair) were questioned about the possible privatisation of Channel 4 when they gave evidence to the DCMS Committee on 22 June 2021. 1Kevin Brennan MP asked what had changed since the 2016 Lords Committee report. Alex Mahon said:

Probably there are a couple of things that have changed...One is that the digital landscape has become more dangerous in terms of social media, so the importance of public service content has probably become higher, which is maybe the opposite of what we would have thought five years ago, but that sort of trusted, objective, fact-checked requirement for news is more important than ever before and certain kinds of content.

The other is there is a lot of competition, but it is not making British content owned by British companies, and perhaps the other thing is the export value of those companies. We do a lot for British companies that send their content abroad. That gives us soft power as a country...Our role in ensuring that we allow that stuff to be made and get it exported is perhaps even more important than it was.

Mr Brennan also asked:
Would it be fair to say that both of you are saying there is no new compelling argument for privatisation that has arisen in the last five and a half years that makes it any more of a sensible path to take than it was previously?...

Alex Mahon replied: “Not that I have seen at this stage, but I look forward to seeing any analysis”


Like most reasonable people, I would like to see the analysis and evidence behind this decision, and validate if the decision proposed meets the criteria set out in the remit.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36118256)

Arron Banks gave his analysis earlier but I wouldn't call it reasonable but I wonder if he's that wide of the mark

C4 news is an extension of The Guardian newsroom, a bunch of trendy Oxford educated lefties with less neutrality than the BBC! We are engaged in a cultural war where the right win elections and the left control the media. It needs a bullet in the back of the head pronto

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118279)

But based on an ideology, rather than based on sound commercial and public service broadcasting remit - surely you don’t think they should have announced a verdict (privatisation) without considering all the evidence?

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 36118280)

'Bullet in the back of the head'? Sounds like cancel culture to me!

Media whether on TV or in print should be able to have a range of views in both publicly owned and private companies.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being 'an extension of The Guardian newsroom' unless you think there is a problem with The Guardian newsroom itself. Which even if you think that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have the ability to exist.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118284)

Why can’t they just present the news factually? This is what people are crying out for.

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 36118288)

Most news is factual, but they do also have opinion from correspondents and editors.

However saying to a government representative that they're lying when they're lying is apparently now 'bias'.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118297)

Not when it is obviously a lie, such as calling out Putin when he says the murder of civilians and the wanton destruction of buildings in Ukraine has been ‘staged’.

Political opinions are always welcome I think, but they should be separate from the news bulletins.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118284)

Do you have evidence that they haven’t?

---------- Post added at 13:22 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------



Why can’t they just present the news factually? This is what people are crying out for.

Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36118318)

Or claiming no knowledge of parties at no10 during isolation only to then be found out as being present at the parties. As we have seen in Russia, there is a major problem when a government tries to control the media and attempts to stifle alternative opinion. The UK Government under Boris has clearly demonstrated its desire to control the media with its threats to Channel 4 and to the BBC for not blindly supporting the government ideology.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118341)

Regarding partygate, you’re not getting it, are you? Boris has admitted to being present at some events, but he claims he didn’t recognise them as parties. One of the events, for example, he thought was a ‘thank you’ speech to his team. So it is not obviously a lie. That has to be proved.

I know that some take the view that the government plans for the BBC and Channel 4 are ‘revenge’, but there are genuine reasons as to why the government is taking that view. And it has nothing to do with revenge!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118341)

Regarding partygate, you’re not getting it, are you? Boris has admitted to being present at some events, but he claims he didn’t recognise them as parties. One of the events, for example, he thought was a ‘thank you’ speech to his team. So it is not obviously a lie. That has to be proved.

I know that some take the view that the government plans for the BBC and Channel 4 are ‘revenge’, but there are genuine reasons as to why the government is taking that view. And it has nothing to do with revenge!

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36118343)

Care to share?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118380)

For me, this quote summed it up perfectly…

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36118386)

Isn't that the way the world works?

"hey guys, I've got this brilliant idea/concept, we just need to market it properly to ensure the public think they need it" :D

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118392)

Only in Marketing and Politics...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118341)

I know that some take the view that the government plans for the BBC and Channel 4 are ‘revenge’, but there are genuine reasons as to why the government is taking that view. And it has nothing to do with revenge!

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118380)

For me, this quote summed it up perfectly…

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36118406)

Another good summary:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118417)

Coulda, woulda, shoulda…

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36118416)

Link

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118417)

Coulda, woulda, shoulda…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118429)

Typical. You get some evidence you’ve been calling for from people you disagree with, and instead of having a discussion, you deride the response with something barmy like this and simply stick with your views because you’re always right. Even when you are wrong.

And then we go round in yet another circle.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36118431)

No evidence, just opinions. Which is fine but the two should not be confused.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118433)

The financial benefits of privatisation when advertising is declining has already been stated, but you are not listening, are you?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118433)

The financial benefits of privatisation when advertising is declining has already been stated, but you are not listening, are you?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36118438)

What do you mean by the financial benefit of privatisation? Channel 4's revenues have been growing and it has diversified its income streams eg pay TV streaming service app All4. It's possible they could be diversified further but adding shareholders who will need a return on their £1bn investment won't benefit Channel 4 financially. This is a solution in search of a problem and will just waste valuable time in the Commons and Lords and likely go nowhere.
Shouldn't the government be spending its limited legislative time on things like GDPR reform? Or has it run out of ideas and acknowledged there will be no bonfire of red tape?

Originally Posted by cheekyangus (Post 36118437)

Part of the point of Channel 4 is to stimulate and provide a platform for the independent television production sector. That's why when it was created it was deliberately conceived and structured not to make its own shows, just commission them, so there would always be an outlet for independent production companies.

A flourishing independent production scene is a key part of the TV ecosystem. If all the major TV channels/platforms only rely, or mostly rely, on their own in-house production, the whole industry, UK and worldwide, suffers.

The big bit quoted a few posts back basically says it should be privatised so it can make its own programming. Channel 4 was basically created for two reasons, to create distinctive programming, and to support independent TV/film production industry. If it starts making its own programming it's a slippery slope to being dependent on it, and then ultimately not fulfilling one of the reasons for its creation.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36118440)

If there is a need for Channel 4 to make its own programming - which I'm not sure there is - it does not require privatisation to be able to do this.

Originally Posted by epsilon (Post 36118442)

No and no. It would need a massive investment to build new production studios and why would an investor spend money building new infrastructure for a company supposedly losing its main source of income? The trend has been away from TV companies making their own programmes for years. Thames was a major content producer as have been the successor companies of the original Thames owners (Fremantle etc). Carlton, however, preferred to commission content from independent producers when it took over the London weekday franchise. The bulk of the production facilities of the former ITV regional franchises has been disposed of. It would be a very strange move for Channel 4 to try to reverse the trend of the last few decades. If an investor wishes to start a production venture, surely it would be better to start from scratch rather than take on the commitments of a PSB.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36118440)

If there is a need for Channel 4 to make its own programming - which I'm not sure there is - it does not require privatisation to be able to do this.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118429)

Typical. You get some evidence you’ve been calling for from people you disagree with, and instead of having a discussion, you deride the response with something barmy like this and simply stick with your views because you’re always right. Even when you are wrong.

And then we go round in yet another circle.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118453)

Irony called - it’s says you’ve won this year’s prize for lack of self-awareness… :D

There was no "evidence", only an opinions that something might/could happen, not would happen.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118563)

I'm tempted to ask forum members when they last watched a programme on Channel 4, but I stopped myself because I know that supportive people are highly likely to lie. However, my own local surveys show that not many people watch this channel. I recommend that advocates of this channel do the same. But if those people are left-wing types, I can probably predict their responses! :D

The people who are supporting the channel appear to be anti-capitalist types supporting the woke community, but they can't accept that they are in the minority.

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36118565)

I watch Channel 4 news every evening.And what's wrong with being anti-capitalist?And who says we are in the minority?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118563)

I'm tempted to ask forum members when they last watched a programme on Channel 4, but I stopped myself because I know that supportive people are highly likely to lie. However, my own local surveys show that not many people watch this channel. I recommend that advocates of this channel do the same. But if those people are left-wing types, I can probably predict their responses! :D

The people who are supporting the channel appear to be anti-capitalist types supporting the woke community, but they can't accept that they are in the minority.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118429)

Typical. You get some evidence you’ve been calling for from people you disagree with, and instead of having a discussion, you deride the response with something barmy like this and simply stick with your views because you’re always right. Even when you are wrong.

And then we go round in yet another circle.

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36118565)

I watch Channel 4 news every evening.And what's wrong with being anti-capitalist?And who says we are in the minority?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118563)

I'm tempted to ask forum members when they last watched a programme on Channel 4, but I stopped myself because I know that supportive people are highly likely to lie. However, my own local surveys show that not many people watch this channel. I recommend that advocates of this channel do the same. But if those people are left-wing types, I can probably predict their responses! :D

The people who are supporting the channel appear to be anti-capitalist types supporting the woke community, but they can't accept that they are in the minority.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118576)

Because a mixed economy is the best compromise, and works pretty well.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118563)

I'm tempted to ask forum members when they last watched a programme on Channel 4, but I stopped myself because I know that supportive people are highly likely to lie. However, my own local surveys show that not many people watch this channel. I recommend that advocates of this channel do the same. But if those people are left-wing types, I can probably predict their responses! :D

The people who are supporting the channel appear to be anti-capitalist types supporting the woke community, but they can't accept that they are in the minority.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118576)

Because a mixed economy is the best compromise, and works pretty well.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118563)

I'm tempted to ask forum members when they last watched a programme on Channel 4, but I stopped myself because I know that supportive people are highly likely to lie. However, my own local surveys show that not many people watch this channel. I recommend that advocates of this channel do the same. But if those people are left-wing types, I can probably predict their responses! :D

The people who are supporting the channel appear to be anti-capitalist types supporting the woke community, but they can't accept that they are in the minority.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36118604)

I don't watch many programs on CH4 - just selected documentaries and the occasional series - they rarely have any sport on.

However, the same goes for BBC1, BBC2 and ITV.

I am certainly not left wing and woke - you really need to stop stereotyping people just because they have differing views from yourself

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118563)

However, my own local surveys show that not many people watch this channel. I recommend that advocates of this channel do the same.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118563)

I'm tempted to ask forum members when they last watched a programme on Channel 4, but I stopped myself because I know that supportive people are highly likely to lie. However, my own local surveys show that not many people watch this channel. I recommend that advocates of this channel do the same. But if those people are left-wing types, I can probably predict their responses! :D

The people who are supporting the channel appear to be anti-capitalist types supporting the woke community, but they can't accept that they are in the minority.

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36118584)

What the hell does that mean?

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36118604)

I don't watch many programs on CH4 - just selected documentaries and the occasional series - they rarely have any sport on.

However, the same goes for BBC1, BBC2 and ITV.

I am certainly not left wing and woke - you really need to stop stereotyping people just because they have differing views from yourself

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118618)

I don’t get the impression it gets viewed by most on a very regular basis.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36118623)

I really, really recommend you visit the BARB website :)

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 3611)

I am certainly not left wing and woke - you really need to stop stereotyping people just because they have differing views from yourself

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36118639)

Never been called left wing in my life, lots of other names but still. Guess l watch C4 as much as any other channel . Never thought of it as left wing must look closer.:angel:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36118645)

No, you misunderstand- if you disagree with OLD BOY, you must be left wing…

(or not live in Wokingham and attend the Con Club)…

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36118585)

Where did you conduct your local survey OB ? the Wokingham Con Club? Were ipsos/mori involved ? ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118618)

Sorry, it was just banter, but you’ve all taken it too seriously. You all like winding me up, so I thought I’d return the favour!

I’m sure we all watch Channel 4 from time to time, but I don’t get the impression it gets viewed by most on a very regular basis.

As I understand it, privatisation will enable C4 better access to finance so they can own their own material. Although the channel is currently self financing, the concern is that this income stream is reducing and cannot be relied on to fund the channel in the long term.

We all saw how close to the edge ITV got a few years back when advertising reduced. This forced ITV to look at other income streams, which they appear to have tapped into very nicely.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 36118691)

w anchor

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118722)

It will be interesting to hear the debate in the Commons if this idea proceeds. I certainly agree with the need to bring in private finance, etc, but I’m not sure why Nadine appears to have rejected that idea.

I wouldn’t be in favour of privatisation if it was purely on ideological grounds.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36118724)

It sems to be purely on ideological grounds, for as you say, there's other means to bring private funding into Channel 4 if the government wished to. Let's not forget that Dorries is not exactly an expert in broadcasting and thought Channel 4 was subsidised by the state.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118728)

Yes, I agree with that. And Nadine Dorries was the wrong choice for this job - she doesn't seem to have a clue.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36118728)

Yes, I agree with that. And Nadine Dorries was the wrong choice for this job - she doesn't seem to have a clue.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36125194)

In this recent interview with Nadine Dorries, amongst other things, she proudly boasts that she's never behaved like a politician and that criticism aimed at her is because of her Northern accent and because she's a woman:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017cf0

Originally Posted by DECKAS (Post 36125197)

No she's thick