Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#71

Post by andy_ppp »

makomk wrote: post #52
andy_ppp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Channel 4 actually critique the government for one… secondarily they produce different content than the BBC which will also soon be privatised.

The BBC has been pretty anti-government since about the time of Brexit. It was really obvious in particular during the pandemic, which had many decisions where all options had major downsides - and they spun whichever the government chose as obviously bad, focusing entirely on the downsides of that particular choice, then forgot about all those downsides and switched to spinning the new choice as the bad one the mome…

Do you read the Daily Mail?

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#72

Post by kalleboo »

FerretFred wrote: post #54

"Channel 4 called it "disappointing" that ministers had made their decision despite "significant public interest concerns" over privatisation" This is what our elected representatives do though, and it never ends well. One day we'll actually elect someone with a brain, but it may not be in my lifetime.

I'm sure they have brains, they're just serving someone other than the public

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#73

Post by jayflux »

stuaxo wrote: post #5

This is vandalism. Channel 4 uses no government money and has a remit to show programming other channels cannot. The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government.

> The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government.

The govt offloaded their stake in Natwest a week ago to raise over £1bn, I think they're just liquidating some assets.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/28/natwest-buy...

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#74

Post by doublerabbit »

tialaramex wrote: post #65
doublerabbit wrote: post #31

That's another no-brainer to why I shouldn't pay for a TV License. I'm not going to support an organisation which cuts off my Scottish PM, refuses air importance. Produces poor quality entertainment and now wanting to sell a decent broadcaster from the UK. No seriously, to the down-voters; in the UK you have to pay a TV license. I find the quality of BBC programming really poor. C4 was decent, but if the government i…

For-profit newspapers in the UK are part funded by the "TV license" but Channel 4 is not. Channel 4 is funded by advertising, and by its for-profit ventures like Film 4, which is one of the production companies for famous movies like "12 Years A Slave".

They do not receive funding from the TV license. However channel four is owned by the British Government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#75

Post by gadders »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #49
gadders wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have the BBC - why do we need a second state broadcaster?

Neither the BBC nor Channel 4 are state broadcasters. They are both editorially and operationally independent from the government (which is why this government hates both of them).

state-owned - i.e. not beholden to corporate owners.

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#76

Post by shapefrog »

kalleboo wrote: post #70
lapser wrote: post #59

What's really interesting is how cheap it is being sold for. The current figure being given is "around" £1 billion, which seems like low ball offer for the third biggest broadcasting company in the UK.

My experiences are mostly from other countries but it seems whenever the government sells something off it's always sold way under value...

Isnt this how oligarchs are created - buying state owned assets at massively knocked down prices from their friends in government?

If you donate 20k to the party you can have yourself a multi billion pound media empire and a knighthood all of your own.

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#77

Post by shapefrog »

pdpi wrote: post #41
djaychela wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it should be capable of carrying on its endeavours privately with no issue whatsoever. But that's not the way that things like this work. C4 produces some programming that no other broadcaster in the UK does. The programmes may not be "everything for everyone", but there is definitely something for everyone, and just about everything they've ever made is still available to watch. It will not remain that way if it is…

> There's too much pressure to serve shareholder interests and make everything profitable. This is the perfect example of why I don’t like the “serve shareholder interests” line of reasoning. The state is the shareholder, and they their own interests being served. The current administration is probably less profit-driven than a hypothetical private one, but there’s still somebody at the helm.

> The state is the shareholder,

The people own the state,

> their interests being served

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#78

Post by tialaramex »

doublerabbit wrote: post #74
tialaramex wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For-profit newspapers in the UK are part funded by the "TV license" but Channel 4 is not. Channel 4 is funded by advertising, and by its for-profit ventures like Film 4, which is one of the production companies for famous movies like "12 Years A Slave".

They do not receive funding from the TV license. However channel four is owned by the British Government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Government_Investments

Sure, the British Government owns a bunch of things, including Railway Companies, several Banks, and lots of special purpose companies like the Low Carbon Contracts Company (which exists ordinarily to pay a subsidy to e.g. wind farms, but with energy prices so high actually they pay it money instead)

Selling off these natural monopolies to a private investor who will then demand extra profits to do roughly the same thing and be an intractable obstacle to any political changes is Tory policy but it does not make any actual economic sense it's purely ideological.

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#79

Post by quink »

gadders wrote: post #33
stuaxo wrote: post #5

This is vandalism. Channel 4 uses no government money and has a remit to show programming other channels cannot. The only reason this is on the table is because they critised the current government.

We already have the BBC - why do we need a second state broadcaster?

Three, BBC, Channel 4 and S4C.

Even Australia with only 25 million has two, and IMO it's nowhere near enough. Ireland has two.

Germany has twelve and through those also participates in two transnational public media organisation. Much of it is a purposeful legacy of the allied occupation because one of the earliest things Hitler did is consolidating all broadcasting.

Why you ask have more than one public media organisation? Because you ensure diversity of opinion, create a resilient network, create specialities, ensure regional representation, provide funding and funding options, provide diversity in all manners, more independence from government interventions, etc., etc.

Spain has 13.

The public service remit is vital.

And don't use the term 'broadcaster' for the concept because it limits their role. It might be much of what they do, but think video game funder, social media, keeper of historical heritage, open-source development, educational platform, trusted source of facts (as in Wikipedia), diplomatic tool, amplifier of diversity in all aspects, keeper of audio-visual libraries ... the possibilities are endless.

Re: Channel 4 privatisation to go ahead

#80

Post by gadders »

Veen wrote: post #55
doublerabbit wrote: post #31

That's another no-brainer to why I shouldn't pay for a TV License. I'm not going to support an organisation which cuts off my Scottish PM, refuses air importance. Produces poor quality entertainment and now wanting to sell a decent broadcaster from the UK. No seriously, to the down-voters; in the UK you have to pay a TV license. I find the quality of BBC programming really poor. C4 was decent, but if the government i…

> in the UK you have to pay a TV license You have to only if you watch broadcast TV, live TV, or use iPlayer. If you're not doing any of those things, then not paying isn't really a boycott. On the other hand, if you are doing them, then you're likely to get fined for it eventually.

And let's not forget that almost 1/3 of all criminal convictions for women in the UK are due to the BBC TV license [1] which is disgusting. TV License non-payment needs to be de-criminalised.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-f...

Post reply on HN