[gpmcadam]

Its odd in a democracy in 2022 that a government should own a media/news organisation. If the argument that this is profitable is true, then it should be capable of carrying on its endeavours privately with no issue whatsoever.

[janekm]

It is not even remotely odd, it is a vital defence of that same democracy. Private ownership of the media is a direct path to authoritarianism (Hungary: Orban, Italy: Berlusconi).

When the government is "aligned" with the same media moguls who control the media (TV, newspapers) you have a huge problem for a democracy. Channel 4 was one of the few entities in the UK that stood out from that trend. In the current context it is madness to privatise one of the last remaining independent news sources in the UK.

Some would argue that the media landscape in the US isn't in the best shape either.

[gadders]

>>When the government is "aligned" with the same media moguls who control the media (TV, newspapers) you have a huge problem for a democracy.

So like in the USA then?

[unmole]

> Private ownership of the media is a direct path to authoritarianism

State owned media can be a more direct path.

[janekm]

Yes forgot to mention that... you really need both (and arguably a solid set of regulations and protections of freedom of the press).

[andrepd]

Well very much in the contrary! I think it's very odd that in a democracy we allow dozens of channels and hundreds of newspapers to be controlled by one, or a very small number, of media conglomerates answerable only to unelected, unaccountable elite billionaires. The stage is set for massive abuses of power and a media which only talks about what it is instructed to, in the manner it is instructed to.

The state (not the government!) might own the company, but it is run by an independent board which is (or is supposed to be) totally independent from the sitting government.

Anecdotally, in my country the public broadcaster is not only by far the highest quality channel but also the one that is most consistently being a nuisance to people in power.

[djaychela]

>it should be capable of carrying on its endeavours privately with no issue whatsoever.

But that's not the way that things like this work. C4 produces some programming that no other broadcaster in the UK does. The programmes may not be "everything for everyone", but there is definitely something for everyone, and just about everything they've ever made is still available to watch.

It will not remain that way if it is privately owned. There's too much pressure to serve shareholder interests and make everything profitable. Not everything can turn a profit, and "the market" doesn't solve all issues - the arts in particular being a case in point.

Dorries has always struck me as being pretty incompetent and not someone you would label as a deep thinker. She's obsessed with the destruction of the BBC, and C4 is clearly an easier target as most people don't even know that it is currently publically owned.

[pdpi]

> There's too much pressure to serve shareholder interests and make everything profitable.

This is the perfect example of why I don’t like the “serve shareholder interests” line of reasoning. The state is the shareholder, and they their own interests being served.

The current administration is probably less profit-driven than a hypothetical private one, but there’s still somebody at the helm.

[shapefrog]

> The state is the shareholder,

The people own the state,

> their interests being served

[secretsatan]

Yay! Cos all privatised channels that show high brow or educational programming have maintained their standards of quality and don't just show endless shows about ufos and nazis

[gpmcadam]

Clearly you’ve never seen some of the bizarre stuff that C4 had put out over the years then?

Perhaps the thing to take from this is that people want to watch bizarre stuff?

[traceroute66]

> Clearly you’ve never seen some of the bizarre stuff that C4 had put out over the years then?

Bring back Eurotrash I say !!! ;-)

[Veen]

That show was certainly an eye-opener for 12-year-old me.

[LightG]

That sh!t is bizarre ... why does that happen?

[andrepd]

They make more money that actual quality programming.

Why was there lead in gas, why was cigarette advertising so huge, etc etc.

[LightG]

Sure, but the fascination with UFO's and Nazi's ... fri!cking bizarre.

[rowanajmarshall]

State-owned media is a common part of democracies. The UK has the BBC and Channel 4, France has france.tv, Germany has ARD, Norway has NRK.

[monkeycantype]

It publicly owned, it doesn't represent the government, which is why the government wants to sell it off

[shapefrog]

I think you are confused as to the difference between democracy and capitalism.

Indeed privatisation could be seen as anti-democratic; the motivation to sell it off (to sympathetic parties?) is because it is critical of your government or you want to maintain control of the media once you are voted out of power.

[gpmcadam]

I'm not confused as to the difference, but thanks for the concern!

[shapefrog]

You are welcome.