UK Politics: Russian Adventures in Toryland

[Week]

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

No please, if you can educate me on the public service value of endless repeats of american sitcoms from the 90s and tv shows about living in Spain then I'm more than happy to be educated.

Please Please Please, look at the ACTUAL content Channel 4 is providing, not the one you remember from decades ago, and tell me what public service it is providing and how it is living up to its remit to create innovative and diverse programming.

 

False dilemma.

Another arrow in the quiver of bad faith bullshit artists.

[DMC]

I know next to nothing about Channel 4, other than it apparently carries The Great British Bake Off.  But what I can tell you is when it comes to news media, from a comparative perspective, it's an empirical fact that public news media (that includes structural protections for political independence of course) is reliably and strongly correlated to healthier and stronger democracies.  Considering how polarization and the rise of the radical right have permeated throughout the west over the past thirty to forty years, I would be deeply concerned about any privatization efforts.  Especially considering wikipedia tells me Channel 4 News is both highly rated and respected.

[Spockydog]

There are some Tories openly suggesting that this is Boris Johnson's revenge for negative Brexit coverage. This, from the chair of the DCMS:

 

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I know next to nothing about Channel 4, other than it apparently carries The Great British Bake Off. 

British Bake off is a BBC programme that Channel 4 bought up when the presenters left and a new team came in. So Channel 4 didn't even create that. 

What is it they actually do? 
 

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

.  Especially considering wikipedia tells me Channel 4 News is both highly rated and respected.

Their news content is decidedly partisan on a number of issues, yeah maybe that is why Boris would like to be rid of them, though there is a strange confusion that privatising Channel 4 would somehow change their news content. There doesn't seem to be any real reason why that would be the case. 

[Week]

5 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

There are some Tories openly suggesting that this is Boris Johnson's revenge for negative news coverage.

 

Could you please explain the precise mechanism how Boris is making this change, document all negative coverage (please identify all pro/con coverage so we can assess if it's equal), and explain how/why Boris would benefit?? He has publicly stated that Cheers is one of his favorite shows so this seems like more innuendo and fake news. I choose to believe and trust the mendacious corrupt leaders over skeptics, whistleblowers, and activists. /s

ETA - Wow, to argue that privatizing wouldn't change news coverage is more naive (i.e. dishonest) than I anticipated. Despite just acknowledging that Boris might want to do this specifically for that reason. 

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

Could you please explain the precise mechanism how Boris is making this change, document all negative coverage (please identify all pro/con coverage so we can assess if it's equal), and explain how/why Boris would benefit?? He has publicly stated that Cheers is one of his favorite shows so this seems like more innuendo and fake news. I choose to believe and trust the mendacious corrupt leaders over skeptics, whistleblowers, and activists. /s

ETA - Wow, to argue that privatizing wouldn't change news coverage is more naive (i.e. dishonest) than I anticipated. Despite just acknowledging that Boris might want to do this specifically for that reason. 

I'm interested in how much you actually know about channel 4. Like almost everything you comment on within this thread, it sounds like it's very little.

[Week]

Just now, Heartofice said:

I'm interested in how much you actually know about channel 4. Like almost everything you comment on within this thread, it sounds like it's very little.

Cute! 

[Spockydog]

In other 'Tories Taking Great Care Of Us All' news:

Cancer patients seriously ill after struggle to access Covid drugs in England

Quote

Cancer patients infected with coronavirus in England are becoming seriously ill after they were unable to access antibody or antiviral medicines on the NHS.

Ministers have promised to provide early treatment for 1.3 million people whose immune systems mean they are at higher risk of severe disease, hospitalisation or death. The treatments include the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) and the antiviral medicines nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (Paxlovid), remdesivir (Veklury), and molnupiravir (Lagevrio).

However, the Guardian has been told that while many patients are benefiting from the treatments, others are struggling to access them. Some have become critically ill as a result. Health charities say red tape and a lack of clear guidance have led to “mass confusion” and anxiety among some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Kate Keightley, the head of support services at Blood Cancer UK, said: “The new treatments are a really important step forward in keeping people with blood cancer safe, and we’ve heard about many people who have accessed them with no problem. But we are hearing from people who are struggling to access them despite clearly being eligible. While it was understandable that there were teething problems when these treatments were rolled out in January, it is deeply disappointing that there are still significant issues with the system three months on.

“Every day, we are speaking to people with blood cancer who have got Covid and are scared about what might happen. The last thing they need is the additional stress of chasing the NHS for the treatments, and in many cases anxiously waiting for a call that does not come.

 

[A wilding]

For anyone not up to speed on this plan to sell off Channel 4, here is a pretty good summary.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/05/sell-off-channel-4-wont-benefit-anyone-but-boris-johnson

(HoI may ignore it, as it was published in The Guardian,)

[DMC]

Just now, Heartofice said:

British Bake off is a BBC programme that Channel 4 bought up when the presenters left and a new team came in. So Channel 4 didn't even create that. 
 

...I didn't say they did, I only mentioned the show to emphasize it's just about all I know about Channel 4.  I don't like the show at all, but I'm aware of it because whenever my brother and I visit my parents the three of them watch a shitload of it.

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

though there is a strange confusion that privatising Channel 4 would somehow change their news content. There doesn't seem to be any real reason why that would be the case. 

This is staggeringly ignorant of how private ownership impacts news coverage and doesn't really warrant a response.

[Spockydog]

Only a cretin would argue with this:

Quote

Many people have never understood Channel 4’s business model, and among them is the culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, the minister who announced yesterday that selling off Channel 4 would boost the independent sector. Appearing before the culture select committee last November, she said it was right that the government should evaluate the channel’s long-term financial viability because Channel 4 was in receipt of public funding. She looked embarrassed when the Conservative MP Damian Green pointed out to her that Channel 4 gains its income from advertising, not the public coffers. How can a woman who didn’t even know what organisation’s business model was claim to be motivated by protecting its finances? Of course, as a publicly-owned organisation, Channel 4 also does not make a profit, pumping all its income back into programming, whereas its new owner will rightly expect a profit.

The government claims privatisation is needed so Channel 4 can borrow money to compete with Netflix and Amazon. This also shows a misunderstanding both of the purpose of Channel 4 and of the industry. Channel 4 is not there to compete with Netflix and Amazon. It is there to provide public service programming which promotes discussion and debate. I love Bridgerton. I watched the entire first series twice, the second time on mute so I could concentrate solely on the dresses. But I didn’t learn much from Bridgerton about the government’s levelling up agenda. The gorgeous people dancing in those huge ballrooms appeared unaffected by concerns about how to heat them in the energy crisis.

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Britain NEEDS a Fox News of its very own.

 

 

In completely unrelated news, Rupert Murdock is supposedly raising various loans and realising capital for almost exactly the valuation of C4 ($1.25B vs $1.3B)

You all may or may not have seen 

:Biden called Fox News ‘destructive’ and Murdoch ‘the world’s most dangerous man’, new book claims
Biden said media mogul was ‘even more toxic’ than Fox News, authors said"  

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-murdoch-fox-news-dangerous-man-b2050211.html

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Now, I am trying to imagine DMC at a family visit, while his brother and parents watch the Great British Bake off, while he is sulking in another room. 

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, A wilding said:

For anyone not up to speed on this plan to sell off Channel 4, here is a pretty good summary.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/05/sell-off-channel-4-wont-benefit-anyone-but-boris-johnson

(HoI may ignore it, as it was published in The Guardian,)

Yes its a very poor article. Much of it utter waffle.

 

Quote

In the 40 years since, they have made billions of pounds – not just for themselves but also for Britain, selling their wares around the world. And, unlike the BBC, they have spoken with many voices, bringing diverse and radical ideas to the fore which had barely been heard before in mainstream broadcasting.

That simply is not the case any more. It hasn't been for a very long time. Even I will admit the BBC takes more risks and is more diverse in it's programming than Channel 4.
 

Quote

The government claims privatisation is needed so Channel 4 can borrow money to compete with Netflix and Amazon. This also shows a misunderstanding both of the purpose of Channel 4 and of the industry. Channel 4 is not there to compete with Netflix and Amazon. It is there to provide public service programming which promotes discussion and debate

Ok, is that what channel 4 is there to do? Ok great, now show me how it does this. Does the article list out all the many programmes Channel 4 creates that does this? Nope. All it can do as it grasps around for examples is 'Its a Sin' (the one programme Spocky was able to identify from the last 10 years that was in any way unique and relevant) and Unreported World. 

Ok so lets look at what valuable programming Unreported World is providing to the UK. Great so it has an episode on 'Girls who Surf' , one on people who chase locusts in Kenya and Schoolgirl pinups in Japan. Brilliant, really unique innovative programming I wouldn't find anywhere else. Remember this is the best example The Guardian can find to defend Channel 4. Balance that with the list I provided of programming today, which is the same almost every day, which is 90's US sitcom repeats and low budget tv about moving to spain. 

Channel 4 was created a time so that it could compete against the tiny number of domestic UK tv channels, particularly the more mainstream low brow ITV. Except now it's hard to tell them apart (the same could be said of BBC1). So really Channel 4 is hampered by its funding model, its revenue has been flat for a while and it's hard to see what more it can do if it's just stuck making the same cheap low risk tv.
 

Quote

We can expect to be reassured that any new buyer will be forced to carry serious programmes such as news and current affairs. But don’t be fooled when the details are announced. Channel 4 News, which is made by the independent company ITN, is one hour long, goes out in primetime and costs a significant amount of money.

Even now Channel 4's only remit is to provide about an hour a day of news programming. That's all it has to do. It has no remit as far as I'm aware around how that news is structured. The news is already privately funded and created by an independent news agency, so why would privatising Channel 4 change that? Shouldn't you be more worried if the government made Channel 4 a state news agency? Boris already has no input on Channel 4 news, Channel 4 is already subject to commercial pressures, so what changes?
 

Quote

urrently two-thirds of Channel 4’s main channel content is commissioned from companies in the nations and regions, and 55% of its spend on new contentcomes from the nations and regions. Are we to believe the new owners will want to share their profits round the country like that?

That's mainly because it's cheap as chips tv to make. There are plenty of other commercial UK TV stations that make their content mainly inside the UK, you could say the same thing about Dave or any other number of channels. 
 

[Hereward]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

...I didn't say they did, I only mentioned the show to emphasize it's just about all I know about Channel 4.  I don't like the show at all, but I'm aware of it because whenever my brother and I visit my parents the three of them watch a shitload of it.

This is staggeringly ignorant of how private ownership impacts news coverage and doesn't really warrant a response.

Against my better judgment, and with proviso that I’m opposed to the privatisation, but this isn’t true in a UK context. All news providers are required by law to be impartial and balanced, and are regulated by Ofcom to ensure compliance. ITV and Sky news are both privately owned, but widely respected by the sane, and Sky  is owned by Murdoch. It’s not like Fox because it’s not allowed to be, not because he doesn’t want it to be.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Against my better judgment, and with proviso that I’m opposed to the privatisation, but this isn’t true in a UK context. All news providers are required by law to be impartial and balanced, and are regulated by Ofcom to ensure compliance. ITV and Sky news are both privately owned, but widely respected by the sane, and Sky  is owned by Murdoch. It’s not like Fox because it’s not allowed to be, not because he doesn’t want it to be.

This is controlled for.  Research demonstrates even in countries with strong regulatory authorities, privatization of news media negatively impacts democratic health metrics.  The profit motive of private ownership is what degrades the quality of journalism - regardless of any entity's partisan slant. 

[DMC]

36 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Now, I am trying to imagine DMC at a family visit, while his brother and parents watch the Great British Bake off, while he is sulking in another room. 

Oftentimes I sulk in the same room while reading the internet.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is controlled for.  Research demonstrates even in countries with strong regulatory authorities, privatization of news media negatively impacts democratic health metrics.  The profit motive of private ownership is what degrades the quality of journalism - regardless of any entity's partisan slant. 

Channel 4 is already privately funded

[Hereward]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is controlled for.  Research demonstrates even in countries with strong regulatory authorities, privatization of news media negatively impacts democratic health metrics.  The profit motive of private ownership is what degrades the quality of journalism - regardless of any entity's partisan slant. 

Fair enough, that makes sense. I assumed you were assuming a US context of the private owners imposing an editorial line.

[Hereward]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Channel 4 is already privately funded

But not for profit. More money taken out by the owners would likely mean less left for non-profit generators like news. Certainly, while still high quality in international terms, ITV News is a shadow of its former glory now that news isn’t widely watched.