A FUTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TELEVISION CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD

CONTENT AND PLATFORMS IN A DIGITAL WORLD
It might be argued that Channel 4’s remit
and public service credentials could be
preserved under private ownership. But even
if a sale tied the buyer to certain regulatory
requirements, it would necessarily change
Channel 4; a private sector mentality would
creep into the organisation. No one is likely
to buy it without wanting to make a profit;
and regulatory requirements can always
be gamed. The way in which ITV has won
concessions to its regulatory burden should
serve as an example (see Chapter 6).
Channel 4’s chief executive, David Abraham,
told a parliamentary event organised by
this Inquiry that, based on his experience
of having worked for seven years at the US
network Discovery, any commercial buyer of
Channel 4 would make changes to maximise
profits. He set out what he would do if he
were in charge of such a process:
The quickest way to do that [maximise
profits] would be to make the way which
I’ve spent the money much more efficient
and in order to do that I would work with
far fewer companies, I would pursue far
more entertainment programming, I would
cut the news, I would cut all of the films, I
would do barely any comedy because it’s
very uneconomic, I would probably not do as
much original drama… I’ve lived in both worlds
and I can tell you that these are two very
binary, different ways of operating. I wouldn’t
be as relaxed, and I think that you would
drive inextricably towards Channel 4 being
like Channel 5, somewhere between Channel
5 and ITV. I don’t think that would suit the
advertisers of this country who like the fact
that we appeal to lighter, more upmarket
viewers than the other channels because we
are doing something different. 212
He also argued that the editorial freedom of
fully commercial channels was constrained:
I know from direct personal experience that
when you’re running commercially funded
channels there are places that you do not
go… In America shows are cancelled, people
get fired… We have a different approach
in this country, which I’m very proud to be
associated with, and it is not one where the
shareholder interest is the primary, dominant
factor in editorial decision making. I do think
that those effects would be fairly immediate,
I would get phone calls to say they’d rather
we cancel this investigation into some
corporation or into some powerful politician
because it will be very convenient. And it
is inconvenient but it is part of public life
in Britain that we permit organisations like
Channel 4 to behave in this way. 213
We find his arguments persuasive on both
counts.
212
Inquiry event on Channel 4, Palace of Westminster, March 14, 2016.
213
Ibid.
75