|
Re: Channel 4 to be privatised
The consultation remit was
Quote:
|
The consultation therefore asks for views and evidence on what ownership model and remit will best support Channel 4 to thrive for another 40 years and beyond.
|
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
Quote:
The Committee concluded that the risks of privatisation outweighed any potential benefits:
...some of the important content that C4C produces in news, current affairs and film would be at risk if the organisation was privatised and had to operate in a more commercially focussed environment. C4C’s roles in commissioning programmes from smaller production companies and from outside London would both be threatened by a privatisation deal.
We are concerned that, notwithstanding assurances given at the point of sale, a private owner may seek to dilute C4C’s public service remit in future, in order to maximise profit. We draw attention to the risk involved in a sale: once a company has passed into private ownership—particularly, as is likely, with a C4C sale, into overseas’ ownership—there is no mechanism to control or influence its fate.
We heard little evidence to suggest that C4C itself or the creative industries would benefit from full or part privatisation. The risks appear to outweigh any potential benefits. Key questions about the future of C4C remain unanswered. If privatisation in any part is proposed by the Government we would expect to see a full, public consultation on the evidence for a change in the ownership model of C4C. However it is our clear preference that the status quo be maintained as there are many more risks than benefits involved in privatisation.
Government response
In her March 2017 response to the Committee’s report, Karen Bradley, the then Secretary of State, said that “Channel 4’s public service model and remit, which are so vital to the continued strength of the UK’s broadcasting ecology, would not be best served by privatisation”.
|
The full remit was
Quote:
The consultation sought respondents’ views on:
• whether they agreed that there were challenges in the current TV broadcasting market that presented barriers to a sustainable Channel 4 in public ownership.
• whether a continued Channel 4, with a continued public service broadcasting licence and remit, would be better placed to deliver sustainably against the government’s aims for public service broadcasting if it was outside public ownership.
• what the economic, social and cultural costs and benefits might be to moving Channel 4 out of public ownership.
|
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
|