Options

The Channel 4 "Thing".....

WhoAteMeDinnerWhoAteMeDinner Posts: 4,612
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Not even sure I am literate enough to express my affection and loyalty for Channel 4.
And right now, from last Autumn, the unique icon of publicly-owned, yet advertinsing-funded, UK and Ireland broadcasting is on a serious hot streak.

Babylon, Indian Summers, No Offence (btw: not a comedy, a serious insight into modern British social problems) and currently the ratings smash: Humans give the impression that C4 has something extra in the staff coffee, which other broadcasters(Sky) would pay 5 billion pounds for. And even then, Sky would still make unwatchable dross, that seems to defy their financial might.

By way of balance, as ever with Channel 4, some unspeakable turkeys have been launched our way at the same time: Man Down, a dull shipping documentary and a new comedy starting this Tuesday about someone moving offices that looks awful.
But that is C4 in a nutshell, they will try anything and see what works, the majority of their shows are both successful and of good quality with this creative chaos approach.

Back finally to the unique element, given C4 is about the only bit of UK national infrastructure that has not been sold to China, America or Qatar as yet.

Is there a compelling case to be made for a separate Channel 4 license fee to protect the Channel 4 "DNA" in tough economic times that might leave them open to being privatised ?

Comments

  • Options
    Johnny_CashJohnny_Cash Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I disagree regarding man down, but thats taste in the end. For the most part I enjoy Channel 4 but over the past few years they have made some awful shows, judmental, sneering shows.
  • Options
    fastest fingerfastest finger Posts: 12,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I would add The Last Leg to their list of wins.
  • Options
    TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Very funny. A good parody of viral advertising for CH4.
  • Options
    WhoAteMeDinnerWhoAteMeDinner Posts: 4,612
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thanks for reading my long-winded thread.

    I did not mean it as a parody and I have no connection to C4, but if it makes people laugh, happy to oblige.
  • Options
    firefly_irlfirefly_irl Posts: 4,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've always like Channel 4 because I find they have a good variety to suit all tastes, in that respect I find them better than the BBC. Even the super trashy programming does have an audience and I must admit I sometimes get in on those shows.

    Their easy daytime programming is far easier to watch than whatever version of "Tat in the Attic" the BBC are pushing on daytime.

    I wish Indian Summers had a different time slot, I don't think it helped in the ratings facing off against Poldark and Vera.
  • Options
    StaffsyeomanStaffsyeoman Posts: 613
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm afraid I would deduct marks for "Eight Out of Ten Cats Does Countdown"; funny as an occasional mash up but long past any usefulness. Also its current vogue for voyeuristic "documentaries" which make me fear of a race to the bottom with Channel 5.
  • Options
    carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,705
    Forum Member
    Speaking of C4, this is timely :)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/11703615/Channel-4-faces-shock-move-to-Birmingham.html
    Channel 4’s iconic central London headquarters could be sold off and the broadcaster forced to move to Birmingham, under proposals being discussed by the Government.
    The state-owned broadcaster’s future is being debated by ministers in parallel to preparations for the renegotiation of the BBC Charter.

    It has been suggested that the Channel 4 building on Horseferry Road in the heart of Westminster should be sold and the proceeds returned to the exchequer, Government sources said.

    The non-profit organisation would then move, potentially to Birmingham, to help boost the media industry outside the capital, which is a key element of Channel 4’s public service remit.

    So Labour forced the BBC to Manchester and now this!
  • Options
    West End BoyWest End Boy Posts: 870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭

    Tory B******S!>:(
  • Options
    West End BoyWest End Boy Posts: 870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Not even sure I am literate enough to express my affection and loyalty for Channel 4.
    And right now, from last Autumn, the unique icon of publicly-owned, yet advertinsing-funded, UK and Ireland broadcasting is on a serious hot streak.

    Babylon, Indian Summers, No Offence (btw: not a comedy, a serious insight into modern British social problems) and currently the ratings smash: Humans give the impression that C4 has something extra in the staff coffee, which other broadcasters(Sky) would pay 5 billion pounds for. And even then, Sky would still make unwatchable dross, that seems to defy their financial might.

    By way of balance, as ever with Channel 4, some unspeakable turkeys have been launched our way at the same time: Man Down, a dull shipping documentary and a new comedy starting this Tuesday about someone moving offices that looks awful.
    But that is C4 in a nutshell, they will try anything and see what works, the majority of their shows are both successful and of good quality with this creative chaos approach.

    Back finally to the unique element, given C4 is about the only bit of UK national infrastructure that has not been sold to China, America or Qatar as yet.

    Is there a compelling case to be made for a separate Channel 4 license fee to protect the Channel 4 "DNA" in tough economic times that might leave them open to being privatised ?

    Yes there is, but only if you could do the same for the BBC, then the tv tax could be dished out more equally.

    I do wonder if the long term plan by the current government is to merge the BBC and CH4 as one comapny and renaming it.
  • Options
    firefly_irlfirefly_irl Posts: 4,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Move to Birmingham?? Another flop in the works, the UK isn't like the US where it can have two entertainment hubs like LA and NYC and in both those cases they grew themselves organically. I mean that'd be like NBC moving everything to St Louis. What would be the point.
  • Options
    AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It would be a good idea to move it, but only to Manchester since that's already becoming established as a media centre and moving Channel 4 will add to it. And I can see no reason why the sale of the buolding should go to the government.
  • Options
    firefly_irlfirefly_irl Posts: 4,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    At least Manchester would make sense given the BBC and a lot of TV production takes place there, but the fact is not every city can have every industry, in most countries the entertainment business is primarily located in one city, every city doesn't have its own little mini industry thereby diluting the whole thing. I'm sure Birmingham has industries its good at already.
  • Options
    hyperstarspongehyperstarsponge Posts: 16,706
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Guessing that Channel 4 will have to fund itself through any old poor quality programmes as the Tories are not funding them soon. Last Leg is the programme the government don't want to see after all.
  • Options
    WhoAteMeDinnerWhoAteMeDinner Posts: 4,612
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Channel 4 gets no funding at all from the UK government as far as I am aware, all revenue they generate is from advertising.

    Some great points made by all, the overriding fear for Channel 4's future must be its constant informed criticism of the governemnt, which drives Tories crazy as they are used to being fawned over on Sky News.

    Privatisation in some form must be on the cards.
  • Options
    hyperstarspongehyperstarsponge Posts: 16,706
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Channel 4 is needed to counter act the option of Sky News, The public will still support them by watching adverts if Channel 4 doesn't get funded by the government.
Sign In or Register to comment.