“Owned by the public, for the public” – Channel 4 has long prided itself on being a platform that encourages diverse and radical voices, which mainstream broadcasting wouldn’t typically offer.
Founded in 1982 by the Thatcher government, the platform is publicly owned and funded by its commercial activities from advertisers. Its business model as a non-profit company means it invests revenue into smaller creative production companies across the UK to create different, unique programmes, such as the Great British Bake off or Derry Girls. This accounts for over 338 production companies across the UK’s broadcasting landscape, demonstrating the importance of the platform in creating jobs for small TV producers within the sector.
However, in April of 2022, Boris Johnson’s government revisited the plan of privatising the network for increased profit, which received extreme backlash from the public and politicians alike. Channel 4’s former head of news argued that:
“[Channel 4] is there to provide a public service to the people of Britain with really important programmes like Channel 4 News or Unreported World, which Netflix or Amazon would never make.”
Professor of communications Steven Barnett similarly agrees how:
“Quotas and obligations” [under privatisation] would “inevitably result in fewer jobs, fewer programmes for UK audiences, less diversity of content, less innovation, and less new talent.”
Furthermore, the public circulated a petition to stop its privatisation, with nearly 500,000 signatures. Although the government reversed this decision as of late, I wanted to reflect on the potential changes that would’ve happened if privatisation had occurred and why there was such extensive criticism.
What Changes would happen with Privatisation?
Privatisation is the process of selling public communication assets to the private sector. As many of the comments above reflect a concern for Channel 4’s creative output, what would this mean for its content?
A foreseeable issue with privatisation is that programmes would solely be profit-driven, meaning certain shows seen as commercially “unprofitable” for the shareholders might not survive. For example, current productions such as One Moonlit Night, a non-English opera, and The Unique Boutique, a fashion show for disabled people, probably would not have fit the profit margin of a privatised network.
Channel 4’s role in giving under-represented groups a voice has also been significant, as demonstrated by its commitment to covering the Paralympics, which helped change attitudes towards disability. Programmes such as It’s a Sin, which BBC and ITV rejected, helped spread awareness of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, showing Channel 4’s unique dedication to appealing to a wide range of groups. So privatisation would not only adversely affect the livelihoods of those working in the production sector but further impact the diversity of content on shows and marginalise minority groups or narratives on the platform.
This led me to think about other shows like The Great British Bake Off, which showcases a diverse range of amateur bakers from across the UK and is Channel 4’s most lucrative venture with a turnover of £85 million. Privatisation could potentially impact the content it produces by moving the production of the show in-house, which would limit its creative diversity and change what makes Bake Off so popular: its eccentricity and focus on ordinary people.
Overall, privatising Channel 4 has more consequences than benefits, which explains why many were initially concerned. Its profit-driven model can potentially undermine under-represented and diverse viewpoints in film. This would further affect the employment opportunities of those from minority backgrounds and heavily impact independent production companies, negatively affecting the UK’s creative economy on a broader scale. At least for now, Channel 4 is safe from the hands of privatisation and can continue to prioritise public service over profit.
For more information on the future of Channel 4, check out this video: