Channel 4’s future under the spotlight

Away from the Bake Off bun fight, there are still two serious issues hanging over the broadcaster, writes Raymond Snoddy

Some of the great and good of the broadcasting industry gathered at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport last week for a round table discussion with Culture Secretary Karen Bradley.

They were the sort who used to hold high office in the industry but have also moved on to the usual venues – university media posts, involvement with Ofcom or advising Parliamentary Select Committees.

They sound like the sort whose advice is worth listening to, unlike the rigged advisory panels assembled for Bradley’s predecessor John Whittingdale.

The discussion was mainly about the BBC as the Government moves to finalise details of Corporation’s next Royal Charter.

But rather tellingly the Culture Secretary moved on to the issue of Channel 4.

It’s often difficult to tell what is in a Secretary of State’s mind until the final decisions have been taken and the outcome leaked – or at least that’s what used to happen in the days before Theresa May.

But you can glean something of the preoccupations and likely line of attack from the questions asked at such behind-closed door sessions.

A few things appeared clear to some of those who attended.
[advert position=”left”]

Karen Bradley, unlike her predecessor, impressed as someone with a sharp business brain who would get things done rather than pursuing phantoms and fantasies.

It will also not have escaped their attention that Karen Bradley is very much trusted by the Prime Minister and that anything she decides is likely to receive a fair wind at Cabinet.

It goes without saying that with Brexit Means Brexit very much to the fore, the exception would be anything that causes additional, unnecessary controversy, such as the privatisation of Channel 4.

In July the House of Lords Communications Committee came out firmly against privatisation and concluded that Channel 4 was viable at least until the end of its present licence period in 2024 and that output in news, film production and diversity would be damaged as a result of privatisation.

The sense that emerged from last week’s meeting is that privatisation of Channel 4 remains off the Government’s agenda – at least for now – despite the channel’s free gift to the supporters of privatisation with the £75 million snatch of the Great British Bake Off.

Channel 4 seems to have got away with the most dire consequences of its rush of blood to the head over a baking programme, despite the BBC’s James Purnell arguing that the bakery heist made privatisation more likely.

The Prime Minister, who obviously believes in competition, made light of the spat in her Sunday Times interview by saying people – presumably including herself – would still enjoy the programme when it was broadcast by Channel 4.

On matters of cakes and bread the BBC now has the upper hand. They have three of the four original presenters including Mary Berry and a clause that prevents Channel 4 from broadcasting the programme for a year after it ends on the BBC.

If ever there was a case for the BBC to stick to its profiteroles, abandon the tent and push ahead with a new programme with a new name, then this is it.

Away from the bun fight it is clear that two Channel 4 issues are very much under serious consideration. One is a tightening of the channel’s remit to include more programmes that are explicitly in the public service broadcasting tradition.

The Lords Committee, for example, asked for more programmes to be produced for young adults and older children.

Along the way Channel 4 ditched specific commitments to both education and children’s programmes while claiming, slightly disingenuously, that hordes of its programmes were in effect educational and lots of young people were Channel 4 viewers.

The other idea, which will horrify the metropolitan types who run Channel 4, is that the Channel’s HQ should move to Birmingham. It is still very much a possibility.

Channel 4 successfully beat off the Whittingdale claim that it needed to be privatised to underpin its finances and protect its long-term finances.

The channel proved it was not in any danger and actually had strong financial reserves.

Unfortunately Channel 4 cannot have it both ways. If indeed it is in a healthy financial position – which it is – then more can legitimately be expected from it in the public interest.

As for Birmingham you can see how Birmingham area MPs would love that one and it would play well into the Prime Minister’s script for regenerating regions outside London.

After all if the BBC was bullied into a substantial move of resources and jobs to Salford why shouldn’t Channel 4 go to Birmingham?

In fact this is a thoroughly bad idea because Channel 4 itself produces no programmes and the result would simply end up being wasted time and cash as executives travelled between London and Birmingham.

It would be much more efficient to require the channel to increase its commissioning in the region.

The case for a more explicit and tighter remit for Channel 4 is, however, unlikely to go away.

Coincidently, former broadcaster David Elstein will publish an essay – National Treasure – on the subject next week for Open Democracy, an organisation he chairs.

Elstein is a supporter of Channel 4 privatisation but it is his arguments in favour of a better-defined and monitored remit for the channel that could easily resonate with the Government.

He points up the comments of one of Channel 4’s earliest commissioning editors, Farrukh Dhondy in the recent book What Price Channel 4?

Dhondy’s title was Remit, Schmemit and he noted that a few weeks watching Channel 4 earlier this year led him to the conclusion that the remit no longer existed.

“I must have missed the Act of Parliament that changed or relaxed it,” Dhondy wrote pointedly.

So much has changed since the launch of Channel 4 that it is naïve to argue that Channel 4 should, or could, have stayed the same. However Elstein makes some telling points including highlighting the financial importance of spin-off channels such as E4 to the overall business.

E4 has, according to Elstein, “the most cynical schedule of any in public ownership” with 75 per cent US acquisitions and 95 per cent repeats.

This, Elstein argues, is in clear breach of E4’s Ofcom licence given that – at least for now – all broadcasters operating in the UK have to devote 50 per cent of transmission time to European works.

And as for Birmingham, Elstein has an even more radical idea – why not move Channel 4 to Northern Ireland, home of Game of Thrones and The Fall?

Now that would really be an idea.