[TV] For Sale Channel 4.

[Leekbrookgull]

Have often found the 7pm carries a different/fresh approach to the day's news, plus the channel has been more independent than most of the current programme makers. This comment regards Amazon/Netflix streaming services seems rather vague can't see why either of these companies would want C4 ?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Privatisation is a bad idea. The company is publicly-owned, makes profit and delivers an excellent service. The channel's bosses don't want privatisation, they presented an alternative to the government, the government have ignored that.

Moreover, in this era of political populism and 'fake news' it is more important than ever to have a broadcaster with a track record of producing quality news, current affairs, documentaries and factual programmes.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Well at least they've put someone in charge who knows what they are talking about



........oh

 

[Pevenseagull]

Well at least they've put someone in charge who knows what they are talking about



........oh

Jesus wept.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

We (Britain) are being asset-stripped.

Just recently 60% of the National Grid was sold off to Australia. Leave Channel 4 alone. It isn't even in competition with Netflix or Britbox.


Watch this interview by Krishnan Gurr Murthy with Nadine Dorries and ask yourself why this government wants to sell Ch4.

https://www.channel4.com/news/the-prime-minister-tells-the-truth-says-nadine-dorries

 

[zefarelly]

This is the tories blocking and silencing free speech, nothing more.

 

[HH Brighton]

Just imagine the state of this country by the time of the next election. Irreverisible damage being done by a government, run by a clown with a bunch of morons in the cabinet who cannot grasp the basic concepts.

 

[zefarelly]

Just imagine the state of this country by the time of the next election. Irreverisible damage being done by a government, run by a clown with a bunch of morons in the cabinet who cannot grasp the basic concepts.

Thats just the good bits of the last few years, most of the damage was done in the 80's.

asset stripping now is small beer compared to flogging off our utilities, land and property.

 

[beorhthelm]

has to be one of the weirdest, most pointlessly political ideas and debates in a long time. seems gov want to sell for dogmatic reasons and everyone opposed for equally dogmatic reasons.

there is no obvious benefit of selling off, raises little, doesnt cost taxpayer anything and is pretty successful as it is. on other hand theres no reason it should be "owned" by government, dont control it, it achieves success without funding or oversight. just a remit to do alternative programming, which i think is expected to remain.
best outcome would be to pass ownership to existing board as a seperate entity for a nominal £ and be done with it.

 

[clapham_gull]

It's bonkers.

It was set up by Thatcher to give the BBC and ITV a bit of a kick up the arse. It worked and helped created a flourishing independent production industry (and technical) that is the envy of the world.

Channel Four doesn't make any programmes, even their news.

Many well loved programmes would never exist on BBC/ITV (or even the streaming services) if Channel 4 hadn't been started.

It makes a profit, doesn't take a penny from the state and doesn't appear to be in any immediate threat from the streaming services.

Why are Tories smashing something up that is one of their greatest successes ?

 

[clapham_gull]

Leave Channel 4 alone. It isn't even in competition with Netflix or Britbox.

It even has a partnership deal with Britbox. Britbox (in the UK) is effectively an ITV run and owned service which buys programmes off other broadcasters and production companies.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's bonkers.

It was set up by Thatcher to give the BBC and ITV a bit of a kick up the arse. It worked and helped created a flourishing independent production industry (and technical) that is the envy of the world.

Channel Four doesn't make any programmes, even their news.

Many well loved programmes would never exist on BBC/ITV (or even the streaming services) if Channel 4 hadn't been started.

It makes a profit, doesn't take a penny from the state and doesn't appear to be in any immediate threat from the streaming services.

Why are Tories smashing something up that is one of their greatest successes ?

The Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Just the latest in the batch of extraordinarily awful or ridiculous things this government have done. Shame on them and shame on everyone who would still vote for them. They are irredeemably rancid. It's so depressing. Without any doubt the worst government and bunch of ministers in my lifetime.

 

[withdeanwombat]

Just the latest in the batch of extraordinarily awful or ridiculous things this government have done. Shame on them and shame on everyone who would still vote for them. They are irredeemably rancid. It's so depressing. Without any doubt the worst government and bunch of ministers in my lifetime.

Mine too….I’m a 1948 vintage. Though it’s nearly a dead heat with the milk snatcher’s lot.

 

[CheeseRolls]

has to be one of the weirdest, most pointlessly political ideas and debates in a long time. seems gov want to sell for dogmatic reasons and everyone opposed for equally dogmatic reasons.

there is no obvious benefit of selling off, raises little, doesnt cost taxpayer anything and is pretty successful as it is. on other hand theres no reason it should be "owned" by government, dont control it, it achieves success without funding or oversight. just a remit to do alternative programming, which i think is expected to remain.
best outcome would be to pass ownership to existing board as a seperate entity for a nominal £ and be done with it.

The dogma (if that is what this is) in opposing selling of Channel 4 is the realisation that the interested parties list will soon be whittled down to someone who suits the government's political agenda. There is nothing commercially of value in this approach.
I would also add it is perfectly possible to oppose privatisation, without being anti-capitalist. Competition is a positive thing, starving essential services of investment and then handing them back to the government, when the going gets bad is a terrible thing. The mantra used to be government can't run things as well as private companies, with shareholders. What the last 40 years have established as fact, is that governments are far worse at regulating private monopolies than they are at running services themselves.

 

[clapham_gull]

The dogma (if that is what this is) in opposing selling of Channel 4 is the realisation that the interested parties list will soon be whittled down to someone who suits the government's political agenda. There is nothing commercially of value in this approach.
I would also add it is perfectly possible to oppose privatisation, without being anti-capitalist. Competition is a positive thing, starving essential services of investment and then handing them back to the government, when the going gets bad is a terrible thing. The mantra used to be government can't run things as well as private companies, with shareholders. What the last 40 years have established as fact, is that governments are far worse at regulating private monopolies than they are at running services themselves.

Privatisation in this specific case will definitely lead to LESS competition in the production industry.

C4 is just a publisher, but it's the way it publishes that is unique.



Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Privatisation is a bad idea. The company is publicly-owned, makes profit and delivers an excellent service. The channel's bosses don't want privatisation, they presented an alternative to the government, the government have ignored that.

Moreover, in this era of political populism and 'fake news' it is more important than ever to have a broadcaster with a track record of producing quality news, current affairs, documentaries and factual programmes.

This all over

Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Odd or maybe not ? A little around a month or two after Jon Snow retired. Read into want you want.

 

[A1X]

Another jewel in our cultural crown flogged off by the wreckers in charge

 

[clapham_gull]

I think the Government see C4 as easy target to push an ideology agenda.

Probably advised by the numerous young advisors they employ who are more influenced by Twitter and social media rather than the vast majority of the general public who weren't even aware than C4 was publicly owned.

C4 have had a part to play though. They've allowed themselves to be staffed by an achingly middle class and privately educated workforce, much worse than the other traditional broadcasters. Trying to do the right thing, but took their eye of the ball completely in terms or who they employ.

In that they represent everything the current administration hates. The educated but liberal. Rather than just accepting they are part and parcel of a society and should be debated with they'd rather they were removed. It's chilling.

Paradoxically ideological because (like the free market) they are products of Thatcherism. C4 is just a proxy who other things they have planned.

This isn't the Conservative party as we know it. Definitely not that of Thatcher.


Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk