Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60985496
95 comments
This is vandalism. Channel 4 uses no government money and has a remit to show programming other channels cannot.
The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government.
The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government.
Boris is letting Nadine Dorries do what she wants as a thank you for her unswerving loyalty. It's incredible someone so incompetent and frankly, stupid, is a cabinet minister.
Honestly, considering what the goverment is doing, I think there needs to be real questions asked about who are they trying to serve. It doesn't really seem like it's the British public.
That could be a decent summary of the last decade under the current government.
For those outside of the UK, it has been a disaster.
For those outside of the UK, it has been a disaster.
'Money made from the sale will be reinvested in a "creative dividend" to be shared among the TV industry, with some of it earmarked for independent production companies.'
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?
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?
> The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government.
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...
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...
We already have the BBC - why do we need a second state broadcaster?
Well Channel 4 actually critique the government for one… secondarily they produce different content than the BBC which will also soon be privatised.
We must watch different programs on the BBC. I see BBC presenters and journalists criticizing the government every day.
To be fair, it's not up to the BBC to criticise. They should be reporting impartially and let the folks make up their mind.
What is and isn’t a critique is so subjective. What we really mean is that the BBC is willing to report news that doesn’t fast the government in a good light. Contrast this with day Al Jazeera which never has reports on the wrongdoings of its primary country.
The BBC has been pretty anti-government since about the time of Brexit. It was really obvious in particular during the pandemic, which had many decisions where all options had major downsides - and they spun whichever the government chose as obviously bad, focusing entirely on the downsides of that particular choice, then forgot about all those downsides and switched to spinning the new choice as the bad one the moment the government changed their mind. They also tend to just outright parrot opposition talking points without questioning or challenging them in any way, because that's reserved for stuff the government does. They even managed to outright knowingly lie about how the UK's Covid response compares to other countries in Europe during the early days of the pandemic, and apparently this doesn't violate their standards in any way.
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'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.
Three, BBC, Channel 4 and S4C.
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.
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.
> Channel 4 uses no government money
So, it's already private?
So, it's already private?
No, its funded by advertising but owned by the government. That means they have more remit to do what they like (no shareholders like Murdock to appease).
It is owned by the government but generates all it's own funding via advertising, selling programming slots and selling content overseas (Film4, for example).
No, it's owned by the government but doesn't take any government funding.
Who owns the capital? If it's the government, then yes, it's state funded even if it doesn't require constant capital injections
Can you really call something 'state funded' if it receives no funds from the state? I can't see any justification for that definition.
State owned, not state funded. Pretty easy to understand distinction so I assume you're wilfully misrepresenting the situation.
It is funding the state not being funded by the state.
Channel 4 owns the capital.
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.
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.
From a Hackernews point of view the most relevant part of this will be their video distribution platform 'All4' (previously '4 On Demand').
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.
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.
Yes, yet more public assets are being sold off to private concerns, this time for doing things the current government doesn't like, but look at the positive side: their online streaming might become less buggy /s
Not had any of those issues for me for -years-. There were definitely issues many years ago, but I find All4 (both on computer and smart TV) to work very well, remembering pretty much exactly where I left off across programs and platforms.
It’s hard to believe channel 4 needs to be privatised in order to get better at streaming. All you need to do is look at BBC iPlayer, which is miles better.
> BBC iPlayer, which is miles better
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.
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.
I certainly prefer iPlayer interface to Netflix's one.
> I certainly prefer iPlayer interface to Netflix's one.
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.
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.
Anecdotally, the All4 app works fine on my phone and over chromecast. The biggest media app I've had issues with is the Virgin Radio app.
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.
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.
> All4 is one of the buggiest platforms of all of the big channels.
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.
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.
> The subscription service that is supposed to not show ads shows ads..
Absolutely correct and totally ridiculous, although they do make the distinction of calling these ads 'promotional messages'.
Absolutely correct and totally ridiculous, although they do make the distinction of calling these ads 'promotional messages'.
All4 has always worked fine for me, I find Channel 5 the least reliable of UK TV channels for streaming. Having said that, I usually record interesting Channel 4 programmes so I can skip the ads!
Do we need private companies to make top tier streaming services? The BBC iPlayer is pretty good and pretty open, much more open (technicaly speaking) than something like Netflix.
I use All4 a lot and never had a single issue with it. I use it in the Browser. Is there any data to support it being "buggiest"?
Only anecdata. But this is experience from using 4oD and All4 with comparison to iPlayer for the last 12 years.
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.
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.
"Channel 4 called it "disappointing" that ministers had made their decision despite "significant public interest concerns" over privatisation"
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 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.
I'm sure they have brains, they're just serving someone other than the public
Nadine Dorries... I mean I don't know what I can say that is polite language. She should not be a minster let alone a cabinet minister.
This decision is brain-dead and I would not be surprised if it dies a death in the lords or commons.
This decision is brain-dead and I would not be surprised if it dies a death in the lords or commons.
What's really interesting is how cheap it is being sold for. The current figure being given is "around" £1 billion, which seems like low ball offer for the third biggest broadcasting company in the UK.
That's what the Tories do. Sell the country's silverware at a discount to their mates. See British Gas, British Telecom, The Royal Mail, orth Sea drilling rights etc...
My experiences are mostly from other countries but it seems whenever the government sells something off it's always sold way under value...
Isnt this how oligarchs are created - buying state owned assets at massively knocked down prices from their friends in government?
If you donate 20k to the party you can have yourself a multi billion pound media empire and a knighthood all of your own.
If you donate 20k to the party you can have yourself a multi billion pound media empire and a knighthood all of your own.
See Evgeny Lebedev. I imagine the odds on him being the successful bidder for Channel 4 are extremely slim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev
TIL Channel 4 was previously publicly owned.
I was also completely unaware of this, it gives past controversies around Brass Eye and other edgy programming a different light.
It was created specifically under Thatcher to serve otherwise under-served audiences, and that inevitably means it's controversial, because if what it showed was not controversial it'd be on one of the channels all those well-served audiences are watching.
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.
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.
I cant decide if this is a good thing or not.
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.
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.
Channel 4 owns Film 4, both the TV channel and the film production company of the same name.
Should make for an interesting float. I rate Film 4.
> Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said: "Channel 4 rightly holds a cherished place in British life and I want that to remain the case. I have come to the conclusion that government ownership is holding Channel 4 back from competing against streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon. A change of ownership will give Channel 4 the tools and freedom to flourish and thrive as a public service broadcaster long into the future."
Errr, how is BBC4 going to be a public service broadcaster at all if it becomes private?
Errr, how is BBC4 going to be a public service broadcaster at all if it becomes private?
FYI Channel 4 is a completely separate company to the BBC and BBC4.
The broadcasting licence it is issued with will contain conditions describing content it must produce. For example, it might say that it must broadcast 15h of original news per week, or commission 20% of its output as documentary programmes.
Its odd in a democracy in 2022 that a government should own a media/news organisation. If the argument that this is profitable is true, then it should be capable of carrying on its endeavours privately with no issue whatsoever.
It is not even remotely odd, it is a vital defence of that same democracy. Private ownership of the media is a direct path to authoritarianism (Hungary: Orban, Italy: Berlusconi).
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.
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.
>>When the government is "aligned" with the same media moguls who control the media (TV, newspapers) you have a huge problem for a democracy.
So like in the USA then?
So like in the USA then?
Well very much in the contrary! I think it's very odd that in a democracy we allow dozens of channels and hundreds of newspapers to be controlled by one, or a very small number, of media conglomerates answerable only to unelected, unaccountable elite billionaires. The stage is set for massive abuses of power and a media which only talks about what it is instructed to, in the manner it is instructed to.
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.
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.
>it should be capable of carrying on its endeavours privately with no issue whatsoever.
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.
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.
> There's too much pressure to serve shareholder interests and make everything profitable.
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.
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 state is the shareholder,
The people own the state,
> their interests being served
The people own the state,
> their interests being served
Yay! Cos all privatised channels that show high brow or educational programming have maintained their standards of quality and don't just show endless shows about ufos and nazis
Clearly you’ve never seen some of the bizarre stuff that C4 had put out over the years then?
Perhaps the thing to take from this is that people want to watch bizarre stuff?
Perhaps the thing to take from this is that people want to watch bizarre stuff?
> Clearly you’ve never seen some of the bizarre stuff that C4 had put out over the years then?
Bring back Eurotrash I say !!! ;-)
Bring back Eurotrash I say !!! ;-)
That show was certainly an eye-opener for 12-year-old me.
State-owned media is a common part of democracies. The UK has the BBC and Channel 4, France has france.tv, Germany has ARD, Norway has NRK.
It publicly owned, it doesn't represent the government, which is why the government wants to sell it off
I think you are confused as to the difference between democracy and capitalism.
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.
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.
That's another no-brainer to why I shouldn't pay for a TV License. I'm not going to support an organisation which cuts off my Scottish PM, refuses air importance. Produces poor quality entertainment and now wanting to sell a decent broadcaster from the UK.
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.
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.
> in the UK you have to pay a TV license
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.
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.
Just to underline the point, in the UK, you need to pay a TV License fee to watch any broadcast TV, including Channel 4. They (C4) don't get any funding from this fee.
And let's not forget that almost 1/3 of all criminal convictions for women in the UK are due to the BBC TV license [1] which is disgusting. TV License non-payment needs to be de-criminalised.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-f...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-f...
> 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.
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.
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.
The result of lots of people "boycotting" the BBC is that it won't be funded and will end up being sold like Channel 4. Many in the current government would love to break up and sell off the BBC. I agree that the Beeb is largely garbage at the moment, but I hope that it can recover from it's current malaise in the future.
[deleted]
For-profit newspapers in the UK are part funded by the "TV license" but Channel 4 is not.
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".
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".
They do not receive funding from the TV license. However channel four is owned by the British Government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments
Sure, the British Government owns a bunch of things, including Railway Companies, several Banks, and lots of special purpose companies like the Low Carbon Contracts Company (which exists ordinarily to pay a subsidy to e.g. wind farms, but with energy prices so high actually they pay it money instead)
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.
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.
They don’t receive license fee funding
They do not receive funding from the TV license. However channel four is owned by the British Government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments
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