Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE UK GOVERNMENT has been heavily criticised after it announced that it was proceeding with plans to privatise Channel 4.
The Government has argued that the broadcaster’s long-term future needs to be secured amid concerns for its survival in the streaming era.
Founded in 1982 to deliver programmes for underserved audiences, Channel 4 is state-owned but receives its funding from advertising, not from public money.
A statement by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) said it had made the decision to allow the channel to “thrive in the face of a rapidly-changing media landscape” while a Government source said the move would “remove Channel 4’s straitjacket”.
Ministers launched a public consultation into a potential change in ownership of the channel last July, which received over 60,000 responses.
British Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said in a tweet that she wanted the broadcaster to remain a “cherished place in British life”, but felt that Government ownership was “holding Channel 4 back from competing against streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon”.
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. 1/3
— Nadine Dorries (@NadineDorries) April 4, 2022
“I will seek to reinvest the proceeds of the sale into levelling up the creative sector, putting money into independent production and creative skills in priority parts of the country – delivering a creative dividend for all,” she said.
In a statement, Channel 4 said it was “disappointing” that the announcement had been made without formally recognising the “significant public interest concerns” which have been raised.
Channel 4 has engaged in good faith with the Government throughout the consultation process, demonstrating how it can continue to commission much-loved programmes from the independent sector across the UK that represent and celebrate every aspect of British life as well as increase its contribution to society, while maintaining ownership by the public.
The channel explained that it presented DCMS with an alternative to privatisation that would “safeguard its future financial stability” and allow it to do more for the public, creative industries and the economy, particularly outside of London.
“Channel 4 remains legally committed to its unique public-service remit. The focus for the organisation will be on how we can ensure we deliver the remit to both our viewers and the British creative economy across the whole of the UK,” it said.
The broadcaster added that it will continue to engage with the Government during the legislative process and plans to do everything it can to “ensure that Channel 4 continues to play its unique part in Britain’s creative ecology and national life”.
Reaction
The decision has been met with backlash online by not only the general public, but politicians, broadcasters and those working in the creative arts industry.
Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner called the decision “cultural vandalism from a government that’s run out of ideas, run out of road and has no interest in levelling up.”
Former Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said the decision was “the opposite of levelling up”.
“Channel 4 is publicly owned, not publicly funded. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer a penny. It also, by charter, commissions content but doesn’t make/own its own. It’s one of the reasons we have such a thriving indy sector in places like Glasgow,” she said.
The Thick Of It creator Armando Iannucci tweeted: “They asked for ‘a debate’; 90% of submissions in that debate said it was a bad idea. But still they go ahead. Why do they want to make the UK’s great TV industry worse? Why? It makes no business, economic or even patriotic sense.”
They asked for ‘a debate’; 90% of submissions in that debate said it was a bad idea. But still they go ahead. Why do they want to make the UK’s great TV industry worse? Why? It makes no business, economic or even patriotic sense. https://t.co/aokG0yZPlm
— Armando Iannucci (@Aiannucci) April 4, 2022
You know viewers have to pay subscriptions for Amazon & Netflix - but we get Channel 4 for free? And that C4 - current annual revenue £1b, unlike Netflix, who have a long-term debt of $16.9b - don't want to be sold? Why replace a successful UK business model with a shaky US one? https://t.co/H5NKK4dvaK
— Caitlin Moran (@caitlinmoran) April 5, 2022
The reason Channel 4 is being destroyed is because - it's good. This is a government that wants to drag everything down to its own pathetic level.
— Otto English (@Otto_English) April 5, 2022
Journalist and author Caitlin Moran pointed out that viewers have to pay subscriptions for US streaming services while viewers of Channel 4 do not, while Netflix also has a long-term debt of over $16 billion.
Radio broadcaster Darryl Morris described the channel as “a brilliantly British idea. The people’s channel, duty bound to make programmes others won’t, bat for the underdog and fear nobody. And it costs us nothing.”
“Yet the government are selling it off. They say they love Britain, and then tear the best bits of it apart,” he said.
No price tag has been set by the Government yet, but reports suggest the channel could be sold for as much as £1 billion in a process that could take several months, with the proposals needing to pass through both the House of Commons and Lords.
Ministers have said they will seek to reinvest the proceeds into the creative industries.
With reporting from the Press Association.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Channel 4 provided an excellent service with fairly decent content for the most part,
One has to question all this is revenge for Channel 4 previously doing a documentary on Nadine Dorries showing her links to Christian fundamentalist/extremist groups and using a block of ice in a election debate because Borris wouldn’t show up.
C4 should be left as they are, they don’t cost the tax payer money and they produce some fairly hard hitting stuff. They are also not afraid to challenge MP’s….that is of course why they want it sold off!
@Barry Somers: Not to mention C4 punch way above their weight when it comes to online content.
They provide an excellent free streaming service with tonnes of content which works really well on numerous platforms (RTE take note!!!), they also provide a very reasonable priced advert free option. They’ve licensed content out to Netflix, Amazon etc so they are far from in need of help from Nadine and her ilk!
@Barry Somers: They do cost the TAX payer money they get a wedge from the TV license.
@Joe Thorpe: oh dear joe…are you secretly Nadine?
C4 get no license fee money whatsoever.
Don’t worry Joe, Nadine also said the same uneducated, ill-informed thing. So you are in good company.
Dorries at one point thought the tax payer paid for Channel 4 and had to be corrected live on air. You couldn’t make it up. I wouldn’t be a fan at all of our Government but I’m genuinely grateful that we’re not stuck with these lads.
Ch4 is one of the best U.K. broadcasters in my opinion. I do like BBC and ITV but I think CH4 are an all round good fit. Their not afraid to try new things and push the boundaries that little bit. Their 4OD service is great and works well. Now if they could put naked attraction on that boy later it would be great. Don’t want to be flicking over from the 9 o’clock news to see dinky winkies
@Brian Hunt: ^*that bit later
I suspect it will be a Tory donor who somehow wins the competition and that will be the end of another voice trying to bring their corruption to account.
It’s because they told the Truth about Brexit.
Tories didn’t like that.
How come we read stories daily about the bias of state owned media & what an attack on democracy state media is. Victor Oban won because of “State Media” we hear? But if the British want to divest themselves of State Media it’s an attack on democracy? We can’t have it both ways. If it’s privatised it can go out into the big wide world & compete with other multinational media companies or if as is the case today hardly anyone watches it it can go bust and stop being a drain on people that prefer to watch streaming services. You don’t run a bus no one catches why would you run TV stations that no one watches? I’ll not be surprised if more people over here watch C4 than they do in the UK. Get rid of the BBC too let people chose if they want to pay for it.
@Joe Thorpe: C4 costs the tax payer nothing, so where exactly is the benefit to the state other then a pay out from the sale?
History has shown just how badly things go when you sell of services, look at British Rail, Royal Mail, British Gas. They all turned into companys that put profit above anything else. We can see the same happened in Ireland too.
Most of the media in the UK is owned by 4 media company’s, If they sell of C4 you can expect one of those companys to buy it.
Additionally they will turn it into a channel that just wants profits for share holders, right now C4 put profits back into content and the benefits of this can be clearly seen throughout.
@Joe Thorpe: Independent media is all but dead in Hungary, many experts claiming it’s in a worse state now than during communism in the 1980s.
@Barry Somers: Having lived in the UK when these were privatised British rail was a joke when run by the government, less expensive but less reliable.
Royal mail is much the same as before, some parts of it better some parts worse.
B.T. is far better now than before.
So I see no reason for selling of channel 4.
All media should be state owned and government controlled in my opinion. I don’t ever want to see intellectuals such as Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, Peter Hitchens or any other people with a different opinion to me ever interviewed on irish media. From what I see Ireland is doing extremely good chosing who we allow on our media.
‘Journalist and author Caitlin Moran pointed out that viewers have to pay subscriptions for US streaming services while viewers of Channel 4 do not, while Netflix also has a long-term debt of over $16 billion.’
of course bing a journalist She also went on to explain that Netflix has a market Value of 173.8 billion dollars and can comfortably manage a long term debt of 16bn dollars – except of course she didn’t – she selectively picks a number to try make an argument that Netflix business model is bad because they have long term debts – such utter nonsense – half brained utter nonsense – if journalists want to use financials to try contribute to a debate they should at the very least be able to understand the very basics – otherwise they are just waffling with half informed understanding of business – rant over ;-)
I won’t miss it. It’s a pale shadow of itself from the 1980′s. Plays a lot of rubbish these days. But what of E4, More4 etc. Oh yeah….I don’t care. Give me BBC4 anytime.
If C4 is constrained, the British government is perfectly capable of undoing those restraints.
Selling off the ownership doesn’t give C4 any more money to do what it can’t afford to now.
If its charter is a problem, the government could just as easily alter that charter.
have your say