[krona]

> Channel 4 uses no government money

So, it's already private?

[Milner08]

No, its funded by advertising but owned by the government. That means they have more remit to do what they like (no shareholders like Murdock to appease).

[colourgarden]

It is owned by the government but generates all it's own funding via advertising, selling programming slots and selling content overseas (Film4, for example).

[xnorswap]

No, it's owned by the government but doesn't take any government funding.

[djbebs]

Who owns the capital? If it's the government, then yes, it's state funded even if it doesn't require constant capital injections

[onion2k]

Can you really call something 'state funded' if it receives no funds from the state? I can't see any justification for that definition.

[SirHound]

State owned, not state funded. Pretty easy to understand distinction so I assume you're wilfully misrepresenting the situation.

[shapefrog]

It is funding the state not being funded by the state.

[rowanajmarshall]

Channel 4 owns the capital.

Like, Elon Musk owns SpaceX (or at least a controlling share), but he doesn't fund it. SpaceX funds itself, and SpaceX owns that capital.