You can be a foreign entity and own networks, particularly cable networks, but you cannot be a foreign entity and have majority control of station licensees. There's nothing that could've stopped Murdoch from starting Fox as a network, but buying off Metromedia's stations made him a station owner and he had to become an American citizen to keep the stations. Similarly, Televisa of Mexico, that country's dominant broadcaster, had to sell off its majority interest in Univision for that network to keep its stations (although Televisa is still the primary program supplier for UNI). BBC Worldwide could've started BBC America without a U.S. partner, but they chose to go with Discovery and now AMC as a partner. A U.S. division of Al Jazeera owned the unsuccessful Al Jazeera America (which before that and Current was NewsWorld International, owned by the CBC, which also owned Trio, which they sold to NBC and is now defunct.)
As for Channel 4, isn't the reason they had to drop "Big Brother" was because it had become too popular? And one could argue that they had no business even putting on their air the UK version of "Deal or No Deal" (which is about to go off the air after eleven years, I believe one of the longest-running versions of the franchise). That could've gone on ITV or C5 with no problem at all. (Not the BBC--because of the license fee, they can't put on big-money game shows unless they're National Lottery-related--"The Weakest Link" got on only because it was stated that the odds of anybody winning the potential maximum figure on that show were infinitesimal. If you ask why they can't put on those shows, they don't want a viewer complaining about their license fee money going to make a game show contestant rich.) Mark Jeffries Saints Spotlight Editor [email protected] On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Steve Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, 14 September 2016 00:43:42 UTC+1, Adam Bowie wrote: >>> >>> The biggest thing here is that Channel 4 seemed to have bought the >>> format without securing the talent. As Mark mentions above the two >>> presenters have announced they're quitting, and the pressure will be on to >>> see what the two judges, Paul and Mary, do. Without the talent, C4 has >>> basically bought a large tent in a field, and I would suspect will really >>> struggle to recoup its investment. Oddly enough, which network airs a show >>> is a *big thing* in the UK, and the production company are probably seen as >>> really greedy by the public at large for not doing a deal with the BBC. >>> >> >> The other issue with this is that Channel 4 are obliged by law to >> innovate. It's clearly stated in their remit - >> http://www.channel4.com/info/corporate/about/channel-4s-remit - to wit, >> "Our overall role is to champion innovation in TV, film & digital – >> nurturing and growing new ideas, formats, views and voices, faces, talent, >> audiences and production companies." Poaching the most popular show on >> British TV for 25 million pounds would seem somewhat at odds with that, and >> Michael Grade - former CEO of Channel Four, of course - has been in the >> media pointing out that, at a time when C4 are running a campaign to avoid >> privatisation, this is the worst thing they could have done. >> >> One great example of this from the past came in the eighties where Thames >> poached Dallas from the BBC, after offering the distributors a huge amount >> of money. This was a huge controversy because it breached the gentleman's >> agreement that the networks didn't get involved in bidding wars for each >> other's programmes, to stop costs spiralling out of control, and even the >> rest of the ITV network, who weren't consulted about it, said Thames had >> behaved in a shoddy and underhand manner. In the end Thames had to >> humiliatingly give them back, and the CEO of Thames resigned. >> >> Someone I follow on Twitter was suggesting putting a bet on the next >> series of Bake Off being on BBC1. Given how badly this is going so far, I >> would endorse that. >> >> (BTW, I do work for the BBC. But not a part that has anything to do with >> this.) >> >> The other really interesting thing is the future of Channel 4 as a whole. > The previous Culture Secretary (who seemed to dislike UK television quite a > lot), was considering plans to privatise Channel 4. If that happened, > there'd be a fair to middling chance that a US company might come in and > buy the network. Channel 5 is owned by Viacom after all. > > [Side question: Is it still the case that a British company wouldn't be > allowed by law to buy a US network, even if there was one big enough to > swallow a network up? Murdoch became an "American" just to buy Fox didn't > he?] > > It's not clear that privatisation - or partial privatisation is completely > off the cards. And Channel 4 is behaving a little less like an alternative > channel as its remit noted above says it should be. Buying Bake Off is just > one part of it. They also recently aired a series called Naked Attractions > in which, well, I'll let you Google it. Just lets say that unlike Naked > Dating or Naked and Afraid, there were close-ups and absolutely no > pixelation or blurring whatsoever. A lot of UK media commentators were > surprised that they aired this while their future is in the balance. Only > today, an editorial in The Sun (proprietor: R Murdoch) calls for the > channel's privatisation off the back of this. > > Channel 4 is unique in the UK broadcasting sector in that it has a need to > be challenging, is free to air, and is very supportive of minority groups. > It would be stupid if something like this wrecked part of the British > broadcast ecology. > > Right - I'll get off my soapbox now... > > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
