True. I posted this up on my messageboard, hoping to drive people into a frenzy of wild comdemnation, but no-one bit...

>True. I posted this up on my messageboard, hoping to drive people into a frenzy of wild comdemnation, but no-one bit...

Saw your message, but thought it was a joke or something. I mean, Channel 4's a commercial station, right? How can it be privatised?

Kindly put me out of my ignorance

channel four is part private, and yet takes part of the licence fee. in return, it has to adhere to certain principles about offering alternative viewing etc.

thus, if it's totally privatised, it'll either get slightly worse or much worse.

in other words, don't vote tory. (and i've used all my neurones, but i can't think of *one* reason why you should.)

j xxx

Because that rich turd said he'd spend $5million ensuring that William Hague becomes prime minister.

Well, you can't resist a party that offers that kind of open democracy, can you?

(Delighted to hear that Anne Widdecombe's Christian Conservative wing is "praying" for party unity and victory in the next election. That'll do it.)

>(Delighted to hear that Anne Widdecombe's Christian Conservative wing is "praying" for party unity and victory in the next election. That'll do it.)

Yes - God is a Liberal Democrat. He doesn't like getting involved in politics.
(rim shot)
I thang yew...

god is a liberal democrat?

that explains why he gets nothing done.

IIRC, C4 is entirely commercially funded, but nevertheless is state-owned. The license fee doesn't enter into it.

Anyway, it doesn't have private shareholders, so it can stick all its profits back ito programmes (even if that just means buying more episodes of Friends). Privatisation would be an utter disaster.

Channel 4 is a rotting corpse of a station,
once quirky and innovative, it's now the equivalent of a broadcasting enema, the station that has recently superceded channel 5 as THE home for cheap tat and not-so-soft porn.

Can anyone tell me how privatising THAT can make things WORSE???

No hoax.

http://tvuk.diginews.org/cablestory.php?story=374

>Interesting to read that C4 has plans for yet more channels - are they (long-term) going down the same route as the BBC & other broadcasters?

Despite assurances, will C4 in it's current form exist in a few years? Or will it be 4sport, E4, Film4, etc?

Where is the intelligent programming going to be placed?

This is serious.

>Channel 4 is a rotting corpse of a station,
once quirky and innovative, it's now the equivalent of a broadcasting enema, the station that has recently superceded channel 5 as THE home for cheap tat and not-so-soft porn.
>Can anyone tell me how privatising THAT can make things WORSE???

yes, i'll join in your rubbish argument, anonymous - here's how it can get worse: c5, sky one, bravo, paramount comedy, etc.

and c4 *does* get part of the licence fee. one of two reasons why it's maintained a colourful and diverse output. the other is its management.

Oooh! You're scary me! I can just see what'll happen if they get privatised!

Just think...

...First they'll buy in loads of american stuff to shore up their schedules...

...Then take short cuts to get ratings up. Why bother thinking up ideas for quality programmes when you can buy gold-plated ratings winners such as, say, sport, from other channels?

...then cut down on home-grown stuff, which will end up as crappy shows with rock-bottom production values, such as, I don't know, um, stunt shows, clip shows, and soft porn masquerading as 'cheeky game shows', 'naughty chat shows' and 'in-depth documentaries'...

What a vision of horror! Do you think it could ever happen???

At least after privatisation money will be the bottom line, rather than style-over-substance posturing bollocks...Perhaps the new channel four will have more courage to take out those clapped-out formats stinking up the schedules (you know what I'm talking about) out to the barn and shoot 'em mercifully through their addled heads.

TFI privatisation!

cynic.

Oh, dear, Anonymous.

Anyone who looks forward (even in jest) to "money being the bottom line" in creative production is clearly some kind of drooling cretin.

You're fashionably disillusioned, but the argument doesn't hold up. Just because C4 isn't as great as you'd like, that doesn't mean that the solution is to let it slide further into ratings-driven, shareholder-pleasing drivel.

At least at the moment we are able to complain to C4 if it isn't fulfilling its putative public service remit. If it's privatised, we'll just have to accept that they become the channel their shareholders want them to be.

Don't forget that, in amongst the smut and giggling, C4 still has the best terrestrial news coverage and a pretty good reputation for documentaries on subjects the other channels avoid.

>Oh, dear, Anonymous.

Oh dear, yourself.
>
>Anyone who looks forward (even in jest) to "money being the bottom line" in creative production is clearly some kind of drooling cretin.
>
You won't win an argument like that. The only thing you're likely to win is first prize in a 'patronizing gimp' award.

>You're fashionably disillusioned, but the argument doesn't hold up. Just because C4 isn't as great as you'd like, that doesn't mean that the solution is to let it slide further into ratings-driven, shareholder-pleasing drivel.
>
How doesn't my argument hold up? Because you've done some extended sarcasm? Because you've written a long hyphenated sentence?
Most of Channel 4's quality output (and the few programmes that are worth watching) is stuff bought in from channels that are 'ratings-driven' and 'shareholder-pleasing'. Frazier, Angel, etc.

>At least at the moment we are able to complain to C4 if it isn't fulfilling its putative public service remit.

What, you mean half-an-hour of seeing Roger Boulton's wrinkly old face a week? Face it sunshine, you can write as many letters as you like complaining about too many 'tits n' bums' on the station, or how regular series get thrown about the schedule (to get ratings presumably), they just laugh in your face and spit in your porridge.

If it's privatised, we'll just have to accept that they become the channel their shareholders want them to be.
>
Maybe hypothetical shareholders might want CH4 to try for a better class of audience?

>Don't forget that, in amongst the smut and giggling, C4 still has the best terrestrial news coverage and a pretty good reputation for documentaries on subjects the other channels avoid.

Last night I saw a trail on channel four for a 'documentary' about a porn actress who'd fucked over 200 blokes on the trot, and who'd broken some record.

Perhaps the other channels avoid this subject because they've got more taste?

And which channel is it that you watch that does this better?

C4's not perfect, but it has a unique position in being a commercial station with some kind of programming standards remit.

Yeah, it's easy to be cynical that viewer pressure may make no difference, but while C4 needs ITC standards' approval to operate, it is possible to embarrass the station into making changes to its output. They have been cautioned in the past. They can be cautioned again.

I don't see many unregulated, commercial stations in the satellite sector being too worried about a commitment to "popular but challenging" TV (or whatever C4's remit was).

And I don't believe shareholders ever pressurise any profitable company into making non-profit related choices. It just doesn't make sense. That's exactly why the government is still allowed to intervene in the free market - because otherwise shareholders won't.

Yeah, C4 is disappointing, but privatising it won't improve matters in the slightest.

(By the way, the Annabel Chong documentary - I'm assuming that's what you're discussing - may be prurient, but it was a critically discussed film before C4 even got wind of it. As a piece of dubious "art" it has its place in their schedules.)

>>
>>Anyone who looks forward (even in jest) to "money being the bottom line" in creative production is clearly some kind of drooling cretin.
>>
>You won't win an argument like that. The only thing you're likely to win is first prize in a 'patronizing gimp' award.

Ideas and talent first. Not cheques.
>
>>You're fashionably disillusioned, but the argument doesn't hold up. Just because C4 isn't as great as you'd like, that doesn't mean that the solution is to let it slide further into ratings-driven, shareholder-pleasing drivel.
>>
>How doesn't my argument hold up? Because you've done some extended sarcasm? Because you've written a long hyphenated sentence?
>Most of Channel 4's quality output (and the few programmes that are worth watching) is stuff bought in from channels that are 'ratings-driven' and 'shareholder-pleasing'. Frazier, Angel, etc.
>
Ah, but that IS the problem. C4 has diluted itself with it's add on channels, importing shows, it's cosy relationship with sky, etc; that it seems to have less money to invest in original quality programming, and it also seems to have forgotten what the hell it is supposed to be.

>>At least at the moment we are able to complain to C4 if it isn't fulfilling its putative public service remit.

Two problems though:
1. C4 are getting so damm arrogant and have a don't give a toss attitude, and,
2. The ITC aren't doing very much at the moment. Their attitude seems to be *we're going to be defunct in five years, so we don't care*.
>
>What, you mean half-an-hour of seeing Roger Boulton's wrinkly old face a week? Face it sunshine, you can write as many letters as you like complaining about too many 'tits n' bums' on the station, or how regular series get thrown about the schedule (to get ratings presumably), they just laugh in your face and spit in your porridge.
>
Their public serivce remit is more than Roger Bolton. Don't be so damm flippant.

>If it's privatised, we'll just have to accept that they become the channel their shareholders want them to be.

I'll repeat myself here. They'll either get bought up or merge with another company. (I'd still put my money on sky).
>>
>Maybe hypothetical shareholders might want CH4 to try for a better class of audience?

I admit to falling about laughing at that remark. It's pure bollocks. Businesses aim to make money. In broadcasting that means maximising revenues from advertising. Advertising rates are also set upon differing factors, age group, socio-economic groups, etc; Can't see C4 sacrificing cash for quality at the moment - or if they were sold off....and of course, large institutional shareholders will want top returns for their clients portfolios. Bad news for the viewers.

>>Don't forget that, in amongst the smut and giggling, C4 still has the best terrestrial news coverage and a pretty good reputation for documentaries on subjects the other channels avoid.
>
True. Just look at BBC 2. They're even wrecking Horizon by tagging it *Pure Science - Sheer Drama* for chrissakes....

>Last night I saw a trail on channel four for a 'documentary' about a porn actress who'd fucked over 200 blokes on the trot, and who'd broken some record.
>
>Perhaps the other channels avoid this subject because they've got more taste?

C5 just show porn. C4 TRY to (at least) not to go for cheap sensationalist tat - and how do you define taste and set the boundaries? Very difficult you'll find. At least public service broadcasting has it cast in stone that it should come close to pleasing everyone with a mixture of programming and output.

Thankyou, george. Nicely put. I'm afraid my faith in the ITC is misplaced.

BTW, Anonymous, in response to your jeering: my sarcasm or hyphenation aren't what destroys your argument. Your argument already fell down when you started claiming that the best way to halt the decline of a public-service station was to hand it even further over to the forces of the free market.

I could understand your point if you were proposing putting MORE restrictions on C4's programming.

Ho hum.

Cross and invisible, Anonymous stalks the forum, being needlessly insulting.

Annabel Chong's pretty erudite on the subject of sex. Intellectual nymphomaniacs rule, I'm afraid.

Incidentally, it's all too easy to believe that Channel 4 is now given over entirely to Dawson's Creek and Friends, but shortly before Christmas (I think) they showed a thoughtful, moving, exquisitely filmed hour-long documentary about suicides in Japan - in Japanese. Not something I'd have actively sought out, you understand, but having come across it by accident I was hooked. Quite beautiful, and a bit unexpected amongst the usual 'heartwarming' detritus that litters the Sunday evening schedules. C4 isn't completely dead. Yet.

Their Japanese season was exactly the sort of "Oh, I Won't Watch That" programming at which C4 excels.

It looks terribly earnest and tokenistic on paper, then turns out to be astonishingly rewarding when you stumble upon a gem like that, revitalising your dwindling enthusiasm for the station.

It completely fulfils Dennis Potter's old chestnut about viewers coming accidentally across educational delights between popular shows - the true hallmark of public service broadcasting.

(BTW I just realised I probably didn't endear myself to "Anonymous" earlier on by referring to him/her/it as a "drooling cretin". Sorry. Not meant to be incendiary, just a good phrase.)

glad you worked that out.