Channel 4 Privatisation

MM Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:57:52 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Lot's of news stories about Channel 4, another one today about the upcoming documentary on Diana (yawn!)

This story was in was the Telegraph the other day:

'Brown may take Channel 4 private' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/30/nchannel430.xml

What do people think? 



Raising between £500million - £1billion for the Treasury seems sensible especially given the upcoming tight spending round.  Also it would show that Brown was quite radical, maybe it's something he could announce in his opening 100 days rather than waiting until he possibly won a General Election.

But given the mere word 'private' and 'privatising' strike fear into some Labour MPs and Labour members will Brown back off?  One expects that he will announce a strategic review that will take 2/3 years to complete and will please nobody.

tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Channel 4 Privatisation | 25 comments (25 topical)

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#1)

by grimupnorth on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:40:28 PM GMT

How depressing - and utterly predictable.Brown is going to carry down the privatisation road.....well don't say you weren't warned.


Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#2)

by Curlew on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:13:21 PM GMT

I thought it always was private - it's commercial isn't it? I certainly never saw it as public service TV.


Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#4)

by CitizenAndreas on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:17:55 PM GMT

As far as I know, it's publicly owned, but not publicly funded.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#6)

by jonesythered on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:52:41 PM GMT

As far as I know, it's partly publicly subsidised and also receives revenue from advertising. Furthermore, the channel is obliged to run educational programmes, cater for minority interests, have a certain amount of cultural/documentary content etc. This will obviously be lost if it is privatised - it'll become yet another commercialised station that's something of a cross between ITV and Channel 5.

However, this isn't surprising coming from the architect of New Labour's privatisation programme.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#3)

by CitizenAndreas on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:16:16 PM GMT

The amount of money involved is not that big when judged next to the size of the budget. Channel 4 itself is entirly self financing, so there is no expense in keeping it in public ownership. Privatising channel 4 would seem about as radical a decision as whether I should go and make a cup of tea.


Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#5)

by MM on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:31:36 PM GMT

I overdid it on the 'radical' bit in the original post. But I think it's something Brown should do in his opening 100 days even thou the Labour manifesto is apparently committed to keeping it in public ownership. Why wait until after a General Election? If it can raise money for the Treasury then it's a positive. The Tories had the idea of using the money and investing it in Universites (perfectly sensible). Perhaps Brown could use it for education in general and the Arts/Culture who are unhappy after the raid into the National Lottery budgets for the Olympics.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#7)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:01:41 PM GMT

I have something to say about the whole Diana controversy. Don't edit tomorrows programme. If anything should have been edited, it should have been the way, a large number of the public turned Diana's death into a public spectacle for the princes, and many of them just wanted to see Harry and William cry. But anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about privatising Channel 4. Where is the £1,000,000,000 going to go to?


Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#8)

by doctordunc on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:23:21 PM GMT

Channel 4 is a very successful publically-owned body (think of the role it plays in British cinema, etc.) Privatising it would be hugely short-sighted and would almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the programming (for the reasons Owen gave). Yes, the government could try and insist that it maintained its brief, but why flog off such an asset?


Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#9)

by Curlew on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:03:37 PM GMT

Ah, now I see why Film Four moved onto freeview. Had forgotten about that - I guess it will move off to subscription TV after privatisation.

Why flog it off? I bet it's to pay for some tax giveaway in his first 100 days. Wonder what that'll be...


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#10)

by Glass House on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 11:14:10 PM GMT

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn if it get's privatised. If it'll shoot the Tories' "Labour are going back leftwards" fox, I'm all for it.


Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#11)

by jonesythered on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:21:36 AM GMT

Glad to see you're assessing a policy on its own merits there, Glass House!


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#12)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:11:25 AM GMT

If that's what it takes to avoid a Cameron government.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#13)

by jonesythered on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:07:22 AM GMT

I don't see how trashing a well respected public service broadcaster and turning into some tacky quasi-Channel 5 outfit will stave off a Cameron Government, Glass House.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#16)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:34:15 AM GMT

See post #10


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#14)

by swatantra on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:25:44 AM GMT

Give it a rest. The public is simply getting bored with Diana and the Princes would be best advised not to create stories out of nothing, just to win the sympathy vote. As for Channel 4, most people think it is privatised anyway as part of the independent Network and is showing adverts. So completing the process won't make a blind bit of difference. Channel 4 doesn't deserve the brickbats hurled at it. It has been an innovative and progressive Channel and its nrews coverage is excellent.


Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#15)

by jonesythered on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:35:51 AM GMT

Swanatara - the point is people will notice, because if it's privatised, it will stop being an "innovative and progressive Channel" and move towards the sort of commercialised crap you get on Channel 5. At present, it functions as a publicly owned public broadcaster which caters for minority interests, shows educational programmes etc. None of these are commercially successful - i.e. advertisers will not pay very much for the Channel 4 Schools slot - and therefore such programmes are likely to be dropped if the channel is privatised.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#17)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:35:02 AM GMT

Why will you get "commercialised crap" like Channel 5 if it's privatised?


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#18)

by jonesythered on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:46:12 AM GMT

Because programmes that cater for minority interests aren't as commercially successful (in terms of advertising revenues). Channel 4 functions as a public broadcaster precisely because it isn't privately owned.

I think that you'll agree that there's a sharp difference between BBC1, BBC2 and Channel 4 on the one hand and ITV and Channel 5 on the other.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#19)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:19:38 PM GMT

So, you're saying that, if C4 became a private company, it would want to increase profits - and, to do this, it would have to offer trash?

Could you then explain to why Channel Four is currently catching up with ITV profits wise? If what you say is true, surely ITV should be streaking ahead with it's trashy programmes while Channel 4 lags further and further behind. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-146059642.html


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#22)

by swatantra on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:36:33 PM GMT

Nonsense. Channel 4 has a reputation to uphold and, if privatised, would be careful to maintain its high standards. Without quality and it's unique selling point, it would become just another trashy channel and profits would slide. Channel 4 is an upmarket brand; its competitors are the opposite.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#23)

by Glass House on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:52:25 PM GMT

That's my point. Jonesy said that, if C4 was privatised, it's quality would diminish.

He thinks that there's more money in trash and a privatised C4 would go after that money by churning out trash.

I think that there's money in quality too - and that C4 would recognise that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#24)

by doctordunc on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 05:29:50 PM GMT

There's money in profitable quality: I'm sure a private Channel 4 would continue to invest in good, popular programmes (the equivalents of The West Wing, etc.) - but I'm sure it would cease to devote as much of its programme to minority interest programming and educational programming because there would be little advertising revenue in that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#20)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:23:18 PM GMT

He can do what he likes with Channel 4, and no doubt will to desparately plug holes in our finances.

BIG question is, will he sell it at an undervalue (like he did with our gold) to Nulab donors, or will he make a killing (like with the G3 licences)?


Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#21)

by otware on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 08:08:28 PM GMT

I don't think the government should sell off C4. I just don't see the point. It must be a nice little earner for the treasury, and it's not like it's doing anyone any harm being state owned.


Re: Channel 4 Privatisation (#25)

by rwendland on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 09:18:41 PM GMT

There's also the political angle - if it is privatised what's the likelihood of Channel 4 turning more right-wing mirroring the straight capitalist attitude of the new owners? I'm not sure trusting regulators to force a balance is wise.

Of the two fairly consistent pro-Labour papers, The Guardian ownership is with the non-profit Scott Trust. I think leaving Channel 4 as a publicly owned non-profit in a similar way is the best long-term bet for a politically balanced channel. On the other hand, I guess the tories might well privatise when they get the chance, so get the billion or so tax subsidy.


Channel 4 Privatisation | 25 comments (25 topical)