THE decision to privatise Channel 4 shows the government’s remarkable lack of understanding of the television industry. Nadine Dorries, the Culture Secretary, who is supposedly driving this project, was astounded to discover that the Channel is not funded by taxpayers, but by advertising!
Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster, producing, broadcasting and distributing media content, including films for cinemas. They also make programmes which are specifically in the public interest.
Most of their income can be spent on making quality programmes, instead of having to fill the pockets of share-holders. The British public directly benefit from Channel 4 being an independent, public service broadcaster.
READ MORE: UK faces calls to be transparent over sale of Channel 4
Unlike the majority of commercial television companies, Channel 4 does have the freedom to innovate and encourage new ideas and formats.
In the USA, 75-80% of TV pilots don’t get commissioned. Advertisers are wary of new ideas and formats, so TV schedules are dominated by tried and tested formats. Consequently a few years ago, there was a complaint in America about the sheer number of British television formats which were dominating the airwaves, led by Dancing with the Stars, the spin-off of Strictly Come Dancing. An internet search shows well over 150 such British shows. Only about 50 American formats have ever made it the other way.
British televisual innovation and creativity has enriched the medium across the world. It is very highly regarded globally and shows like Poldark, Sherlock, Bake Off (which originated on the BBC), Strictly Come Dancing, MasterChef, even Bob the Builder, and many others are shown around the world, generating billions in revenue that flows into this country.
READ MORE: Nadine Dorries and Kirstie Allsopp clash over Channel 4 sale
The fact that ministers compare Netflix with the Channel 4 output shows just how out of touch they are. The two companies perform very different functions.
The suspicion is that the privatisation is Boris Johnson’s petty revenge for pricking his remarkably thin skin. In investigative documentaries like Dispatches the government has been criticised. Johnson wants a more compliant media, just like Vladimir Putin! Selling Channel 4 off to a right-wing media group, like Murdoch’s News Corporation, might achieve that.
Selling off a major part of this national asset has repercussions. In the USA it could not be sold to a foreign owner, but in Britain media assets have been sold off to offshoots of Russian oligarchs and American media tycoons!
Channel 5, with around 4% of viewers, is owned by the American Paramount TV.
Pete Milory
Trowbridge, Wiltshire
A REPORT on drinking water which covered England and Wales was portrayed on BBC Scotland as covering the whole of the UK including Scotland, and named a UK organisation which does not exist. It is called the Drinking Water Inspectorate and only covers England and Wales.
The BBC, when complained to, did change the headline and first four lines of article.
However, a few days later there was a UK report into cancer diagnosis in A&E – a third of cancers discovered when patients attend A&E. This was a UK-wide report, but funnily enough the BBC Scotland news website reported it as Scotland and did not mention the UK.
READ MORE: BBC forced to issue correction following basic errors on devolution
So in a nutshell: when something bad appears in an England/Wales report, BBC Scotland reports it as Scotland as well, and when a cancer diagnosis report which does cover the whole UK appears, BBC Scotland reports it as only Scotland.
But do remember everyone, the BBC is not biased!! They just never learn from their many “mistakes”.
Winifred McCartney
Paisley
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here