Not The Politics Thread.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Sampson said:

Streaming services not as big and as mainstream as people think it is on the internet though. Same as the voices on Twitter aren't what most people think.

 

The biggest shows on BBC, ITV and C4 still pull people in by the millions and still have massive cultural pull.

 

I bet you more people still watch Countdown everyday still than any Netflix or Amazon Prime show.

In 2020 97% of the UK had internet access, and YouTube and plenty of other services are free. It IS a cultural shift that I agree, but it is no longer niche, and you don’t need fee based streaming services to access it. So I would maintain that C4 is not as culturally relevant as it once was, and this change will only be expedited as time goes by.

[Zear0]

10 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

In 2020 97% of the UK had internet access, and YouTube and plenty of other services are free. It IS a cultural shift that I agree, but it is no longer niche, and you don’t need fee based streaming services to access it. So I would maintain that C4 is not as culturally relevant as it once was, and this change will only be expedited as time goes by.

Would counter to this that as more steaming services enter an increasing saturated market (Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Prime, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Paramount to name a few), the last thing we need is another one which would, essentially, be no different to ITV and Channel 5.

 

Channel 4s value in being a public service broadcaster is that they operate under a charter where they're obliged to provide a public service which would be gone the moment it went private. Could see them going from making what I'd consider "Channel 4 stuff" (appreciate its vague but their programming generally has a unique style) to more revenue driven content for which the market is already massively over filled.

 

I'd counter that C4 is becoming more culturally relevant. 

Edited 5 April 2022 by Zear0
Added last para

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

Would counter to this that as more steaming services enter an increasing saturated market (Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Prime, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Paramount to name a few), the last thing we need is another one which would, essentially, be no different to ITV and Channel 5.

 

Channel 4s value in being a public service broadcaster is that they operate under a charter where they're obliged to provide a public service which would be gone the moment it went private. Could see them going from making what I'd consider "Channel 4 stuff" (appreciate its vague but their programming generally has a unique style) to more revenue driven content for which the market is already massively over filled.

 

I'd counter that C4 is becoming more culturally relevant. 

Fair point, I can see this argument. Cannot help but feel however that younger viewers will take their viewing habits with them as they age, and this at least in part will mean more internet based viewing, largely free but with ads. Watching some of vids from kurzgesagt, over simplified amongst others, it does provide hope that the content of internet shows will be of sufficient quality and value.

[Unabomber]

Why are tories celebrating the sale of channel 4? It reads as if most are saying it’s good news without actually knowing why and are just saying it because they think that’s what they should do. 

[Milo]

13 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Would counter to this that as more steaming services enter an increasing saturated market (Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Prime, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Paramount to name a few), the last thing we need is another one which would, essentially, be no different to ITV and Channel 5.

 

Channel 4s value in being a public service broadcaster is that they operate under a charter where they're obliged to provide a public service which would be gone the moment it went private. Could see them going from making what I'd consider "Channel 4 stuff" (appreciate its vague but their programming generally has a unique style) to more revenue driven content for which the market is already massively over filled.

 

I'd counter that C4 is becoming more culturally relevant. 

Surely that could be taken up by the BBC?

 

They spunk hundreds of millions of free money on mediocre mainstream tosh on an annual basis. They could create a semi independent arts/inclusive/new talent/edgy/regional focussed offshoot and still have money to burn. 

Channel 4 was very relevant when it started - it was a real two fingers up to the establishment and the stuffy, staid fayre that was generally on offer at the time (I remember tuning in for pretty much the entire C4 launch day…and ended up falling asleep to Walter(?)).

 

I would say that C4 has been usurped a little with the changes in how people watch tv, and the concept of a Channel 4 type requirement will become less relevant as time goes by. 
 

I doubt if my kids would be able to name 4 terrestrial tv channels, tbh. Or more than maybe 3 or 4 programmes that are broadcast on them. 
 

Saying that, I’m not sure of the huge upside to flogging it off.

 

News will still have to comply with the broadcasting code, so I can’t see how that will significantly change. 

 

[foxes1988]

47 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Why are tories celebrating the sale of channel 4? It reads as if most are saying it’s good news without actually knowing why and are just saying it because they think that’s what they should do. 

I guess its an ideology thing rather then if its the real world logical thing to do.

 

13 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Fair point, I can see this argument. Cannot help but feel however that younger viewers will take their viewing habits with them as they age, and this at least in part will mean more internet based viewing, largely free but with ads. Watching some of vids from kurzgesagt, over simplified amongst others, it does provide hope that the content of internet shows will be of sufficient quality and value.

Your right just seems premature with the privatisation of BBC and C4 both under pressure from un traditional entertainment providers and I'd understand if SKY BT and ITV where changing drastically to meet the challenge but none of them are yet so I would hazard a guess that whilst Prime Netflix Apple Tv+ etc are big competition perhaps we are still a good few years away from the need for change and even when it is needed I don't understand the logic that privatisation is the way to do it.  I mean if paywall internet streaming is the way they all have to go why cant a publicly owned C4 do that? 

Edited 6 April 2022 by foxes1988

[urban.spaceman]

Petition's already up to 250k

 

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-privatisation-of-channel-4-nadinedorries?recruiter=30610335&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&recruited_by_id=38e1f3d0-f115-012f-d187-4040d2fbfbbf&utm_content=fht-29530644-en-gb%3A0

[CosbehFox]

19 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Not condoning it, but how is C4 any longer of cultural relevance in the face of true independent streaming available across the internet? 

'Culturally relevant?' - yes I don't see any other platform who have supported some of the least covered sections of society like Channel 4 have done. Their testament to disability sport for example. That's before I get onto programmes such as It's A Sin or Derry Girls. 

 

There's quite a significant crossover with C4 programmes and Netflix - the original platform for some of Netflix's most successful shows in the UK and internationally. TopBoy and Black Mirror strike to mind. There's a wealth of other examples where Channel 4 shows have lapped up by the steaming platforms and vice versa (Handmaid's Tale + Hulu for example). 

 

It's quite interesting that as a rule of thumb the UK shows which do well on Netflix stem from BBC/Channel 4 originally. Obvious exception of Downton Abbey and The Crown. 

[CosbehFox]

5 hours ago, foxes1988 said:

I guess its an ideology thing rather then if its the real world logical thing to do.

 

Your right just seems premature with the privatisation of BBC and C4 both under pressure from un traditional entertainment providers and I'd understand if SKY BT and ITV where changing drastically to meet the challenge but none of them are yet so I would hazard a guess that whilst Prime Netflix Apple Tv+ etc are big competition perhaps we are still a good few years away from the need for change and even when it is needed I don't understand the logic that privatisation is the way to do it.  I mean if paywall internet streaming is the way they all have to go why cant a publicly owned C4 do that? 

It does in a roundabout way and hence the reason it makes a reasonable sum of money. It touts its shows to steaming platforms and sells them for a fee. Whilst at the same time gives opportunity to foreign language TV and some transatlantic TV do the same - C4 can fund this via commercial revenue and in return when something like the Handmaid's Tale does very well that commercial revenue increases. They have to hedge their bets sometimes on this tactic; some of the foreign language stuff didn't go quite as well as they hoped. 

[CosbehFox]

5 hours ago, Milo said:

Channel 4 was very relevant when it started - it was a real two fingers up to the establishment and the stuffy, staid fayre that was generally on offer at the time (I remember tuning in for pretty much the entire C4 launch day…and ended up falling asleep to Walter(?)).

 

I would say that C4 has been usurped a little with the changes in how people watch tv, and the concept of a Channel 4 type requirement will become less relevant as time goes by. 

 

It still is for me. No channel was willing to give a very successful TV writer the go-ahead to do something as engrossing as 'It's A Sin' for example. 

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

It still is for me. No channel was willing to give a very successful TV writer the go-ahead to do something as engrossing as 'It's A Sin' for example. 

It's a Sin was awesome. 

 

And by far the best thing Channel 4 has developed for absolutely ages.

 

Which is kind of the point of it being questioned, I suppose.

 

There is an absolute need for somewhere that independent, under represented and perhaps non-profit making creatives can platform their talents, but I'd hazard a guess that C4's current top 20 or so viewed shows do not fall into that category. They are more likely to be fairly middle of the road, safe, mainstream programmes.

 

And if that is indeed the case, is the channel living up to what it was set up to deliver? 

 

I have no skin in the game and would probably like to see it continue, but I can see why the public service aspect is being shaken up.      

 

[CosbehFox]

21 minutes ago, Milo said:

It's a Sin was awesome. 

 

And by far the best thing Channel 4 has developed for absolutely ages.

 

Which is kind of the point of it being questioned, I suppose.

 

There is an absolute need for somewhere that independent, under represented and perhaps non-profit making creatives can platform their talents, but I'd hazard a guess that C4's current top 20 or so viewed shows do not fall into that category. They are more likely to be fairly middle of the road, safe, mainstream programmes.

 

And if that is indeed the case, is the channel living up to what it was set up to deliver? 

 

I have no skin in the game and would probably like to see it continue, but I can see why the public service aspect is being shaken up.      

 

It's a mix of both* - have C4 had to adapt to ensure some audience? They have E4 which allows them to output their younger audience. 

 

*https://www.4sales.com/_flysystem/s3filesystem/documents/Viewing Report 24th December 2021.pdf

 

Quite an interesting read that basically what's watched on TV is very MOR but the streaming trend is towards the more original, hard hitting programme (It's A Sin, Help, Deceit). 

 

It's also amazed me to read that Gogglebox is one of the most watched TV programme weekly!

Edited 6 April 2022 by Cardiff_Fox

[urban.spaceman]

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Wymsey]

3 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

He's amongst the most daftest of politicians around, in terms of making such silly comments - and that's saying something after the last few years in politics..

[LiberalFox]

I love how his objection is that it's a slight on his ego, not that he's got any issues with being linked to Putin. 

[Jimothy]

He does work for RT though doesn't he?

[Heathrow fox]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

He does work for RT though doesn't he?

Not anymore he doesn’t.It would be illegal for starters.He’s got the hump because all the years he did work for RT he wasn’t given that heading.Now he doesn’t work for RT or any other Russian media outlet they have.

[Jon the Hat]

I see the media are busy calling out Akshata Murty, who is Indian, born in India and owns businesses mainly outside the UK for being non domiciled in the UK.  Its a bit mental.

[Lionator]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I see the media are busy calling out Akshata Murty, who is Indian, born in India and owns businesses mainly outside the UK for being non domiciled in the UK.  Its a bit mental.

And lives in the uk, and is married to the chancellor of the uk. 

[urban.spaceman]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I see the media are busy calling out Akshata Murty, who is Indian, born in India and owns businesses mainly outside the UK for being non domiciled in the UK.  Its a bit mental.

 

36 minutes ago, Lionator said:

And lives in the uk, and is married to the chancellor of the uk. 

And was given 100k in furlough money, and has business interests in Russia. 
 

But mainly it’s probably because her husband just put an extra million plus people in poverty. 

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

And was given 100k in furlough money, and has business interests in Russia. 
But mainly it’s probably because her husband just put an extra million plus people in poverty. 

Businesses got furlough money to support employees.  Are you saying employees in her businesses somehow didn't deserve that while others did?  The Russian interests were in Infosys (the global IT consulting firm founded by her father) which employees people there.  I seriously doubt as a shareholder of about 1% she had much influence on their business decisions.  I believe they have since announced they are ceasing operations.  Meanwhile EU countries have paid over $40Bn to Russia for gas since the invasion, but hey lets slag off consulting firms.

Edited 7 April 2022 by Jon the Hat

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Businesses got furlough money to support employees.  Are you saying employees in her businesses somehow didn't deserve that while others did?  The Russian interests were in Infosys (the global IT consulting firm founded by her father) which employees people there.  I seriously doubt as a shareholder of about 1% she had much influence on their business decisions.  I believe they have since announced they are ceasing operations.  Meanwhile EU countries have paid over $40Bn to Russia for gas since the invasion, but hey lets slag off consulting firms.

That’s not how politics works though I’m afraid. When you consider this government was elected essentially on a ‘Britain first’ manifesto, it’s hardly good for the chancellor’s family members to have fingers in other countries pies.

 

Secondly, Johnson’s team, or Truss’s team see Sunak as a threat. The reason this is coming out now is that it’s a great opportunity for one of them to bury him on the back of the Ukrainian war and when the spotlight is less on Johnson. It’s politics, it’s cruel, it’s backstabbing and I hate it. 

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

That’s not how politics works though I’m afraid. When you consider this government was elected essentially on a ‘Britain first’ manifesto, it’s hardly good for the chancellor’s family members to have fingers in other countries pies.

 

Secondly, Johnson’s team, or Truss’s team see Sunak as a threat. The reason this is coming out now is that it’s a great opportunity for one of them to bury him on the back of the Ukrainian war and when the spotlight is less on Johnson. It’s politics, it’s cruel, it’s backstabbing and I hate it. 

They are not going to bury him with a non dom wife.  Non dom status is really not that controversial.

[ClaphamFox]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

That’s not how politics works though I’m afraid. When you consider this government was elected essentially on a ‘Britain first’ manifesto, it’s hardly good for the chancellor’s family members to have fingers in other countries pies.

 

Secondly, Johnson’s team, or Truss’s team see Sunak as a threat. The reason this is coming out now is that it’s a great opportunity for one of them to bury him on the back of the Ukrainian war and when the spotlight is less on Johnson. It’s politics, it’s cruel, it’s backstabbing and I hate it. 

There's no way this story is big enough to bury Sunak. Exploiting non-dom loopholes might be morally dubious but it's not the kind of thing that resonates much with the public.

Edited 7 April 2022 by ClaphamFox