There's basically nobody in the UK TV sector who thinks that this is a good
idea. The widely held belief it's politically motivated because the
government doesn't like the hard hitting news agenda of Channel 4 News.

In essence, Channel 4 costs the UK taxpayer nothing. It's not funded by the
Licence Fee as it's completely ad funded, and it uniquely does not make
*any* of its own programmes. When C4 came along it revolutionised the UK TV
sector by allowing new independent production houses to prosper. At the
time, both the BBC and ITV commissioned almost entirely in-house from their
own production companies. There certainly wasn't anything like the TV
studio sister-companies of US film studios making TV series in the UK.

Over time, many of those smaller indies merged and became super-indies,
some of which have been swallowed up by larger studios, but the landscape
over time has changed enormously. But Channel 4 continues to have an
incredibly diverse portfolio. Those indies revolutionised not just UK TV
but international TV.

The real danger here is that the only people who would want to bid for a
private Channel 4 would cut costs by bringing their productions in-house.
Good for the bottom line, but not good for the diverse TV production
community that Channel 4 has nurtured.

Of course the sector is changing as we move from linear channels to
streaming, and the value of the radio spectrum that Channel 4 occupies
(there is still a lot of viewing in the UK on "Freeview" - the digital
version of "rabbit ears", except we use rooftop antennas largely), will
decrease over time. But the channel carrying public service obligations
also gets other benefits. It sits at position "4" in every EPG no matter
which digital TV system you subscribe via (BBC1 is at #1, BBC2 is at #2,
ITV is at #3 and Channel 5 is at #5 - from there on other things come into
play) - which gives whoever owns it significant audiences almost regardless
of what  they put on.

In truth it all feels mean spirited. The money raised will be tiny, since
there will be "Public Service" obligations that come along with the channel
ownership, but a commercial company will take a profit out of it which
means less investment in challenging programming that others are less
likely to provide.

(Netflix et al really don't fill this hole. They all have global - not
local - ambitions. And I'm already seeing vastly more rubbish reality fare
creeping into these services since it's much cheaper than expensive dramas.)

The creative industries are one of the UK's strengths - think not just of
all those British actors adopting (variable) American accents, but the
writers, directors, producers, composers and so on. So nurturing a channel
that supports the bedrock of all that seems a good thing to me.

I can't with any conscience defend every show that Channel 4 puts out. Its
breakfast is made up of repeated episodes of US sitcoms - if episodes of
Frasier and Everybody Loves Raymond are your thing, then great. (I do like
the former). And Naked Attraction is obviously made to pander to audiences
who just want to ogle naked bodies. But, even though these have US
co-funders, I don't think It's A Sin (HBO Max), Derry Girls (Netflix) or We
Are Lady Parts (Peacock) would have existed without Channel 4. And those
are just from the last year or so.

So yeah. This is not great news.



Adam

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:50 PM Mark Jeffries <[email protected]> wrote:

> Two views I've seen from Twitter people with industry experience:  One
> claims that C4's lineup ain't so hot compared to its 80s and 90s glory
> years, mentioning that where the rule-breaking morning show "The Big
> Breakfast" (unofficial inspiration for FX's cult favorite "Breakfast Time")
> was is now "Friends" and "Everybody Loves Raymond" reruns.  Someone else
> has pointed out that the Tories are saying that Netflix and Amazon are
> proof that C4 isn't needed, which sounds like all those Republicans back in
> the 90s who said that we didn't need PBS now that Bravo, A&E and Discovery
> are around (and we all now what those cable channels are now).  Not to
> mention that Amazon Prime is funded by all those other things Bezos sells,
> while Netflix is spending money like a drunken sailor with no sense of any
> future profits.
>
> Mark Jeffries
> [email protected]
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:21 AM Doug Eastick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://deadline.com/2022/04/channel-4-sale-decried-uk-tv-industry-politicians-public-1234994600/
>>
>> I'm not sure about each side of this, as today is the first I thought of
>> it.  My gut tells me that a publicly owned, but commercially funded, is
>> probably better for diversity and opportunity of alternate content.
>>
>> In Canada, bellmedia and CTV seem to have staff slashing announcements
>> every six months.   And their domestic production isn't so great.
>>
>>
>>
>> /Doug
>> [email protected]
>>
>> --
>> 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].
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAK5Q1BpfDqJsdxGCfCAot2%2BPnQ2JXdpwUv4u_fVCitpbX8%2B%2Bfw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAK5Q1BpfDqJsdxGCfCAot2%2BPnQ2JXdpwUv4u_fVCitpbX8%2B%2Bfw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJ_uKi8_wgM0Z6BzwAFbVk0YJqWBY2hYOaeY7BT8zP6AwKmA-g%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJ_uKi8_wgM0Z6BzwAFbVk0YJqWBY2hYOaeY7BT8zP6AwKmA-g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAD_sJGARFoNviAPieiUfNZKJ9r7qECiEnCExyYLSMci38ijyAg%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to