Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
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
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
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.
|
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.