In defence of channel 4 | thearticle

Today Government ministers plan to set out their proposals to sell Channel 4. Two weeks ago in the _ Daily Mail _ , under the headline, “Leftie lynch mob refuse to accept what is best for

British TV”, Nadine Dorries gave her reasons for privatising it: “Broadcasting is now a totally different and digital world. Streaming giants have exploded on to the scene, with juggernauts

such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ upending the old order.”   Yet a 2022 YouGov poll lists Channel 4 as the most popular TV channel in the UK. Giving the percentage of people who have

a positive opinion of a channel, this is the order: 1) Channel 4 76% 2) Netflix 75% 3) BBC One 71% 4) Film Four 65% 5) ITV 63% 6) BBC Two 62% 7) All 4 61% 8) More 4 60% … 18) Amazon Video

53% 20) Disney channel 49%   At a select committee hearing, the Conservative MP Damien Green questioned Nadine Dorries: “The Government’s view, as I understand it, is that Channel 4 is

clearly strong and viable today, but it ’ s an uncertain market, changing very fast and might not be viable in 5 or 10 years ’ time. But Channel 4 is a commercial operation and says, yes, we

have looked ahead into the future, and we know as well as anyone how the digital world is going to change, and we think we _are_ viable long term. So why do politicians think they have a

better view of the commercial market than a commercial operator, because it offends every canon of what we [Conservatives] believe: commercial operatives know about commerce better than

civil servants or politicians, don ’ t they?” Ms Dorries replied: “ I think that it is right that a public service broadcaster, in a rapidly changing digital environment, I think the future

and the longevity of the broadcaster should be brought into question and should be — particularly when it is in receipt of taxpayers’ money — it is our responsibility to evaluate whether

taxpayers are receiving value for money… so I would argue that to say that just because Channel 4 has been established as a public service broadcaster and just because it is in receipt of

public money, we should never, kind of, we should never evaluate whether or not it is a sustainable and viable model.” Damien Green politely explained that Channel 4, though publicly owned,

receives nothing from the taxpayer, funded as it is through sales, advertising, and commercial partnerships. Where is this Government ’ s sense of the UK ’ s culture and social capital, that

it puts its fate in the hands of someone suffering from such a consummate lack of knowledge? And how can the _Daily Mail _name-call Armando Ianucci, David Attenborough, Ruth Davidson and

Jeremy Hunt, who have all spoken out against the sale of Channel 4, as a “ Leftie Lynch mob ”? How does this casual incitement to hate serve our culture?   Here on _ TheArticle _ ,

discussing the decision to sell Channel 4, David Herman wrote, as if it were a bad result, “ Take the 115 nominations for the BAFTA TV Awards. Channel 4 programmes received 27.” However,

apart from the BBC, this is a far better ratio of nominations than any other broadcaster or streamer. For the 2022 BAFTA awards, (to be held this May), there are in fact 130 nominations: 37

are for BBC programmes or dramas, 29 for Channel 4, 19 for ITV, 10 for Sky, 8 for Netflix, and the remaining 19 nominations are divided between Amazon Prime, You Tube, Apple TV, HBO, Al

Jazeera, Tiger Aspect (none of them getting more than 2), and 5 independent producers who have one each. The Disney channel has none, despite Nadine Dorries telling us it has upended the old

order. And it isn ’ t just this year that Channel 4 has been nominated for nearly a quarter of the awards amongst the world ’ s TV ; it consistently wins way above its share. In fact, if

anything, these results raise the question of why the privately-owned broadcasters and streamers are not more successful.   “ Next time someone appears on the Today programme or Newsnight,”

David Herman writes, “saying how great Channel 4 has been over the past 25 years, the presenter should ask them to name ten programmes (apart from ‘It ’ s a Sin’) and explain why they are so

good and why only Channel 4 as it is currently constituted could have made them.” Well, for the record, here they are: GREEN WING 2004-7. Sitcom. 1 BAFTA award, nomination, 1 Rose d ’ Or

and 2 RTS awards. Reviewing it A.A. Gill wrote “ surreal in a way that hasn ’ t been seen since Monty Python”. THE IT CROWD 2006-13. Sitcom. Cult following, international syndications

including Chile, Argentina and Mexico, 2.7 million viewers in the UK alone, multiple Bafta awards, Emmys and a Rose d ’ Or. Adapted for German and US TV. THE INBETWEENERS 2008-10. Coming-of

age sitcom. UK audience of 1.5 million. BAFTA nominations 2009 and 2010. Critically applauded here and in the US. In 2011 a movie based on the series was released to box office success.

SKINS 2007-13. Teen Drama. 1 Rose d ’ Or, 3 BAFTAS. UK views averaged 1.5 million. Edited version aired in US and adapted. FRIDAY NIGHT DINNER 2011-2020. Black comedy Sitcom. 3 BAFTA

nominations. Special 90 minute documentary aired in 2021. Adapted for US and US remake. DERRY GIRLS 2018 to present. Teen sitcom. Rotten Tomatoes gave first series 100%, second series 97%.

In UK each episode watched by more than 2 million. Two BAFTA awards. Paid homage to in _ The Simpsons _ . STATH LETS FLATS 2018 to present. Sitcom 2 BAFTA nominations 2019, 3 BAFTA awards

2020, 3 BAFTA nominations 2022 as well as numerous other awards. Adapted in US.   DISPATCHES British and international current affairs. BAFTA nominated or won 2002, 6, 8, 11, 10, 14, 15 16,

18, 19, 20, and 2021. It often features a mole inside organisations under investigation. The most likely buyers of Channel 4 are Comcast (owns Sky), John Malone ’ s Liberty Global and

Channel 5 owners, ViacomCBS Networks, all US owned. T he evidence is that transnational media has less interest in investigation or holding a government to account, tending to either support

the government in power. UNREPORTED WORLD 2000 to present. Foreign affairs. Award for the Global Defence of Human rights 2007. Often reporting from dangerous locations, it uncovers stories

usually ignored by the world media. Privately owned broadcasters and streamers, their decisions driven by the imperative of profit, produce nothing comparable. At 30 mins it also gives young

documentary makers experience. Aired in the US. After 42 successful series, ITN has brought the franchise though it continues to be broadcast on Channel 4 GOGGLEBOX 2013 to p resent. Multi

award winning, including BAFTA “Must see Moment” as voted for by the public in 2021. It has spawned 2 spin offs and 7 foreign versions. Privately owned broadcasters have inflicted on us

reality TV that is exploitative, voyeuristic and bland. It has taken the communal but competitive spirit of Channel 4 to produce reality TV that is funny, generous and bitingly authentic.

    IT’S A SIN   2021 Drama miniseries. 11 BAFTA nominations 2022. Seoul International Drama award. Distributed in Russia. Catch-up views hit 2.5 million within three days of live broadcast.

A soundtrack that a critic called “…a faultless selection of 80s artists that take on a new resonance.”  Every channel turned it down except Channel 4. A privatised Channel 4 is likely also

to have turned down this uniquely British take of a pivotal moment in LGBTQ history. Privately owned broadcasters, such as ITV, and streaming services favour safer costume/crime dramas. 

THIS WAY UP 2019 to present. Comedy drama 1 BAFTA 2020. The _ Atlantic _ in the US called it “small in scope, infinitely charming and intermittently devastating ”. The _ Daily Telegraph _

judged it one of the best new shows of the year and awarded it 5 stars. In this list I restricted myself to the last 20 years and named 12 shows, although I could easily name more. As the

list demonstrates, Channel 4 fulfils its remit to appeal to a young, diverse audience and is particularly successful at commissioning comedy, the hardest of the arts.  Channel 4 is a

publisher broadcaster: everything you see on it is made by an independent production company. These operate not only in London but from Brighton, Bristol, Leeds, Glasgow and places in

between, giving the UK a thriving independent sector while levelling up the whole country. And it is efficient, measured by revenue per employee: ITV makes £443,000, while Channel 4 earns

just over £ 1m in revenue per staffer. With the public service restrictions on output and production, privatising Channel 4 is unlikely to raise much money. Removing those restrictions, on

the other hand, would take away the beneficial competition with the BBC as a rival public service broadcaster, harm the independent TV sector, and still raise a negligible amount in relation

to government finances. Nor is selling Channel 4 popular with advertisers, who would find it harder to reach its diverse, mainly young audience as a result. It is no accident that the

founding of Channel 4 in 1982 unleashed a flood of creativity in advertising. As for competing with its streaming rivals: how many journalists or camera crews have Netflix or Amazon sent to

Ukraine? Moreover, broadcast TV in the UK doesn ’ t have a big enough advertising base to fund the type of shows Network TV makes in the US. To compete a different structure is necessary —

one such as Channel 4 currently has. The BBC spends $5bn a year on content, Amazon spends $10bn, Netflix $15bn, Disney $30bn and Channel 4 just over $1bn. Out of them all, however, with the

possible exception of the BBC, Channel 4 is the greatest innovator. Its shows, independently produced, have an authentic sense of time and place that you do not see portrayed to the same

extent by privately-owned broadcasters. International TV and movie productions come to the UK because Channel 4’s movie arm, Film4, often provides early funding to independent cinema that

encourages commercial investors (Amazon, Disney, Netflix etc.) to come on board. Film4-backed movies have won more than 35 Oscars between them. On the libertarian Right, the privatisation of

Channel 4 is popular. The GB news presenter Dan Wootton tweeted: “ Wooooo! Go Nadine. Channel 4 will finally FINALLY be sold. Not before time.” And interviewed on GB News, Mark Littlewood,

director of the free market think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: “Channel 4 should be liberated and set free from the dead hand of the state… One can only hope this is the

first step towards liberating the BBC.” Yet GB News has received no Bafta nominations for 2022 — no wonder they want the sale. They don ’ t like the competition and they don ’ t like the

scrutiny either. For the same reason our billionaire-owned press, the _ Mail _ , _ Sun, Times _ and _ Telegraph  _ also promote the sale. So do the many other free market think-tanks,

including the TaxPayers’ Alliance, the Legatum Institute (funded by a Dubai investment group who also fund GB News) and the Initiative for Fair Trade (IFT). Many Cabinet ministers, including

Dominic Raab, Michael Gove, Priti Patel, Sajid Javid, Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, are affiliated to the IEA, TPA and the IFT. In 2018, before he became Tory leader, Boris Johnson even

flew to the US, expenses paid, to receive the Irving Kristol Award from the American Enterprise Institute, sister to the IEA. And he hosted the launch of the Initiative for Fair Trade in the

map room of the Foreign Office when he was Foreign Secretary. Could the Government’s motivation to sell Channel 4 also be that its success, publicly owned as it is, calls into question the

merits of libertarian ideology? Taking no account of the fact that, as Isaiah Berlin put it, “Freedom of the wolf is death to the lamb”, it is a negative interpretation of freedom, with no

concept of self-realisation, nor that freedom resides at least in part in collective control over the common life. An exclusively, or even a predominantly privately-owned media leads not to

freedom of speech but monopoly of speech, state capture by the wealthy and the truth becoming whatever makes the most profit. A plurality of ownership, on the other hand, with both publicly

and privately owned media, leads to a plurality of voices and a strong, competitive democracy.   Netflix has just reported the loss of 200,000 subscribers and expects to lose a further 2

million in the next 3 months. In contrast, last year Channel 4 recorded record revenues. Channel 4 is a key part of this country’s social capital and a major reason why our TV industry is

second to none. If sold it is likely to be bought by a US company looking to showcase their own content. Every way you look at it, selling Channel 4 is destructive. It is hard not to

conclude that the only motivation for it is political self-interest. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important

contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._