To Wise conservatives, Channel 4 should look like a bargain. It is state-owned, so there is no cost to taxpayers. Generate revenue from advertising from both linear TV and streaming and return to the UK’s vibrant and independent production sector without having to make a profit for shareholders.After the channel was sown, it was Margaret Thatcher’s government that made it happen. Sir AnnanA report on the future of broadcasting in 1977. It was designed to stimulate independent production beyond the BBC and ITV, reflecting the full diversity of British talent-and it did. Some say that when they asked an artist in the 1980s, they lost much of the iconoclasm spirit that animated it. Peter greenaway To John Achrome Hula We put out pioneering shows such as Brookside. Kinder critics may say that radicalism is still there, even if it’s hard to detect in commercial programming that supports its more cutting-edge work. Indeed, Channel 4 continues to be the founder of great television. It’s the Paralympic channel of Russell T. Davis’s excellent drama. Is a sinNidamanzur’s innovative comedy about young Muslim women, We are ready parts, The victory of the blockade culture Grayson’s Art Club..

Currently, the government has discussed and rejected the proposal in 2016 as follows: Privatization of Channel 4.. The superficial reason is to help achieve a larger scale in the broadcasting world, which is increasingly dominated by the huge streaming services of the United States. But this argument is weak and heads in the wrong direction. In the first place, it’s not clear what the government will sell. Channel 4 is the publisher of broadcast material. It doesn’t own the show and isn’t a wealthy business with some assets whose sale would raise a significant amount for a public wallet. Privatization is certainly not the kind of “help” that the people running Channel 4 want or need.In the process of establishing a secondary headquarters in Leeds, the channel is the goal Half of the budget was spent outside London in 2021, two years ahead of schedule. Broadcasters have achieved some of the government’s stated policies to spread investment across London. However, the hubs in the area will almost certainly look extravagant and expensive to the estimated buyer. The government says it wants to protect what Channel 4 does. However, the way to maintain the quality of very specific UK institutions is to not allow them to be included in international media companies such as ViacomCBS and WarnerMedia, as well as ITV.

The new impetus for privatization seems to come from two trends among the Conservatives. One is an unwavering commitment to the market as a good thing in itself, as media minister John Whittingdale anthropomorphized. The other is a unique enthusiasm directed at cultural organizations accused of being “awakened,” a tendency most clearly identifiable by cultural secretaries. Oliver Dowden.. Neither of these positions has much to do with the conservative mainstream common sense that focuses on the British success story and “upgrading.”

An interesting contrast is presented by the government’s attitude towards science and this week’s announcement. Centralized bodyThe Science and Technology Council is responsible for “setting a bold vision, acting swiftly and taking risks”. Reframe Channel 4 in much similar terms and easily see it as a smart, low-cost venture capital fund, an incubator for the next generation of UK production talent. Channel 4 needs the government to encourage more innovative and radical experiments in television formats, technologies and content, rather than meaningless and ideological privatization.