Channel 4 is preparing to sign an agreement to keep its news program on the air for the next five years, which means that any new private sector owner could be locked up to produce a show that has repeatedly angered conservative ministers.
This happens when the TV operator’s management team embarks on a restless dance for its future, with the government increasingly annoyed that it is openly fighting privatization attempts.
“Name me another company in which executives could go out and actively oppose their shareholders,” said a government source, who suggested that this would not be tolerated for long.
According to those involved in the process, Channel 4 is in a state of “fake war” before the publication of the government’s detailed plans for privatization, expected in July. Parliament will then be asked to approve the proposals as part of a broader media law in the autumn, with the sale possible in early 2023.
Among the potential candidates is actor Idris Elba, who according to sources is at the beginning of discussions with the television production company Miroma. Both sides stressed their commitment to the channel and its desire to remain British.
Channel 4’s fate is increasingly linked to Boris Johnson’s ability to remain prime minister – and the ability of outside lobby groups, the TV industry and actors to win the support of Conservative MPs.
Channel 4 certainly has friends. The fight against the privatization of the television operator – which has the specific task of creating distinctive content and has to reinvest all its profits in new programs – has united almost the entire television and art industry.
Everyone from David Attenborough to the owners of small production companies in Yorkshire opposed it – while everything from the channel’s investment in comedy programs, its coverage of the Paralympics and even the future of longtime Hollyoaks soap was raised as a potential victim of privatization.
Ministers say Channel 4 needs significant private investment to survive the streaming era. Armando Yanucci, the creator of The Thick Of It, summed up the opposition to this view when he wrote that the channel was “a financial and creative success and still costs absolutely nothing to taxpayers.” He asked, “Why, over and over again, does the government want to make our television worse?”
The only topic that interests MPs the most is the future of Channel 4 News. Culture Secretary Nadine Doris had previously said the program did “no service” to the broadcaster in the tone of its coverage, and suggested there were anti-conservative biases. However, she denied that her attempt to sell the channel was motivated by a desire to silence criticism of the government.
Channel 4’s news studio. A new deal will secure the program’s future in the medium term. Photo: Barry Gore / Alami
Which is just as good, because industry sources say Channel 4 executives are quietly working on a new deal with ITN to continue making the current iteration of the award-winning news program until the end of 2020. Although it is possible for a new owner to cancel a deal, it would be expensive, as the deal guarantees the future of the program in the medium term.
Channel 4’s program director, Ian Katz, warned that the new owner would seek to reduce the available budget for investigations and foreign reporting. He told a media summit in Wales on Thursday last week that “whether it’s a few years later, or in subtle and corrosive ways sooner, Channel 4 is very likely to deliver a different kind. a news program of one that we are broadcasting now ”.
Internally, the channel’s staff is divided into three groups: one who wants to fight the government and win privatization, another who is reluctant to accept privatization and wants to start planning for the future, and a third who wants to try to save a compromise on the middle of partial public ownership.
Employees expect that the current management team – led by CEOs Alex Mahan and Katz – is likely to leave if a new owner takes over. But for now, leaders remain in place, watching a delicate and quiet campaign of influence designed to destroy a Conservative MP. One Channel 4 person said, “They will provide the facts, but they have this fine line to follow.”
A key part of Channel 4’s strategy is to offer support and resources to politicians who want to oppose opposition privatization. After Doris made a series of contentious allegations about Channel 4 in parliament, the media and politicians received a lengthy rebuttal.
This has sparked growing anger in the government that Channel 4’s management team is essentially fighting its owner, opposing privatization and trying to make it an unattractive prospect for potential buyers. One particularly painful point was Doris’s proposal in parliament – still unfounded – that a reality show on Channel 4, in which she appeared in the 2000s, use paid actors to represent real people. Her claim caused panic on Channel 4 and producer Love Productions as they competed to investigate.
Many personalities and politicians involved in the debate on the future of Channel 4 say it boils down to two questions: whether Johnson survives and whether Conservative MPs’ relative apathy toward privatization is either an aid or a hindrance.
If the prime minister is ousted before the sale is completed, potential candidates for Tory leaders, including Jeremy Hunt and Tom Tugendhat, have already signaled opposition to privatization. This month, former Treasury Secretary Jesse Norman called on Johnson to step down and called the sale of the television operator “an unnecessary and provocative attempt to resolve a political non-issue during a crisis.”
Gathering the proposal could be a quick way to signal a change in government direction – but it will require the removal of the entire white paper for the media.
Even if the government manages to speed up the legislation this year, it would be a good idea to complete the sale of Channel 4 within a year – by which time Johnson could be replaced.
Members of the cast of Channel 4 hit Derry Girls. Photo: Peter Marley / PA
Apathy is more problematic. With a government majority of 77, at least 39 conservative lawmakers will have to change countries to defeat the privatization process. Although there are already dozens of Tory MPs who oppose the sale offerings, few say it is a major issue among their constituents, who are much more interested in criticizing the BBC and the license fee.
DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr. told the House of Commons that he had “not received a single complaint for Channel 4 in the last 12 years, compared to” thousands and thousands of them for the BBC “. Many MPs publicly and privately agree with this assessment and would prefer to focus on criticizing other parts of the media.
Channel 4’s concern is that while hesitant Conservative lawmakers believe privatization is a pointless use of parliamentary time, if few of their constituents are interested anyway, they could ask if they really want to sacrifice their careers, such as vote against the government on the issue.
Even Tory MPs, who can support the privatization of Channel 4 in general, remain puzzled as to why the government chose this moment to continue with the plan. In late March, senior figures in the cultural department were confident that the government would abandon the privatization proposal – a favorite policy of former media minister John Whittingdale – and give priority to other legislation before the next general election.
But a week later, Channel 4 executives were unexpectedly told that the sale would continue. What exactly happened to cause this change in the heart is not clear. Numerous sources suggest that MP Andrew Griffith, the former CEO of Sky TV, who heads the Downing Street policy unit and is a close ally of the prime minister, played a key role.
Until a decision is made, Mahon continues to offer alternative proposals, such as relocating more staff and budgeting from London. She told TimesRadio recently that a profit owner could not take the same risks.
“Derry Girls would not be broadcast, It’s A Sin would not be broadcast, the Paralympic Games would not be on the air,” she said. “They involve a huge creative risk in the first place. When you work with new talent, young talent, it’s risky… Netflix and Amazon don’t do it because it’s not profitable. ”
As a result, the final battle may be to ensure that parliament makes the privatized channel less attractive to potential buyers. Last week, Katz called on lawmakers and colleagues to carefully consider legislation that will privatize Channel 4 and enshrine certain program requirements in the law.
He said: “If the government’s proposed privatization of Channel 4 continues without careful protection of its nature, it may look a little different the day after the channel is sold. But little by little, a valuable part of our natural cultural capital may be lost. Like the proverbial frog in boiling water, we may not understand the price until it is too late. ”
Add Comment