Do you want to discuss boring politics? (32 Viewers)

[Ian1779]

Anyway it was this nonsense I was talking about

Channel 4 viewers bamboozled by Gregg Wallace mockumentary about ‘eating human meat’

Viewers were unsure if ‘The British Miracle Meat’ was real or not

www.independent.co.uk

I thought the shagging computer game characters was the worst Black Mirror episode until I saw this.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

Company A has big project

Enlists Companies B, C, D… to do work on project. All of these add to GDP.

It’s also estimated that selling it off would see its investment in program/film making drastically fall in line with other private entities in the same sector. Which would obviously affect income to its program makers and associated companies or companies B, C or D.

We’re very lucky to have C4, it unique in the world of media. People need to educate themselves on it, not least Boris and Nads.

 

[skybluetony176]

Correct Netflix carries a lot of debt but after a big drop in share price it’s been climbing for past 12 months. Not sure comparing the two is wise, Netflix has 250m paying subscribers worldwide and I think makes 12bn a year. C4 has a declining viewership and just about breaks even. View attachment 30864

I’ve got no big issue with C4 remaining under public ownership as it makes a little bit of money so isn’t a burden currently but I suppose the question is whether it’s really a governments role to own tv channels..unless you live in Russia I guess ? Also then whether it will remain profitable. The TV worlds changing rapidly and if we can get £1bn for it now, it might not be a bad shout

It’s not wise to compare the two in C4’s current form. The comparison is to the future that would be C4’s should it be privatised.

You’re right in that TV is changing, especially how we watch it but C4 is ahead of the curve again. It’s the most streamed TV channel in the country. Largely because of the way it invests in program making. It invests disproportionately more of its profits into program making than any other commercial TV channel meaning instead of a constant stream of repeats on all its channels there’s a higher than normal volume of new programs, so there’s always something new to watch. Hence it gets streamed more than other channels.

 

[shmmeee]

No one owns a media company for business reasons, the state included. The question is does C4 add to the media landscape?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

No one owns a media company for business reasons,

Eh? Loads of people own companies to make oodles of cash from TV programmes, films etc!

 

[shmmeee]

Eh? Loads of people own companies to make oodles of cash from TV programmes, films etc!

Sorry should have said broadcast/news. Point is we don’t nationalise industries to make a profit but because they have social value.

 

[Grendel]

Sorry should have said broadcast/news. Point is we don’t nationalise industries to make a profit but because they have social value.

It wasn’t actually nationalised and if it was a private company you certainly wouldn’t be nationalising it

 

[Grendel]

It’s also estimated that selling it off would see its investment in program/film making drastically fall in line with other private entities in the same sector. Which would obviously affect income to its program makers and associated companies or companies B, C or D.

We’re very lucky to have C4, it unique in the world of media. People need to educate themselves on it, not least Boris and Nads.

Still a fan of Location Location Tony?

 

[shmmeee]

It wasn’t actually nationalised and if it was a private company you certainly wouldn’t be nationalising it

It is nationalised. That’s why you want it privatised.

 

[Grendel]

It is nationalised. That’s why you want it privatised.

My point is it started as a public company - was not nationalised afterwards - and it was introduced when there were 3 channels as a means to offer an alternative, radical outlook

I think 1980's TV is a bit different and limited versus 2023

 

[shmmeee]

My point is it started as a public company - was not nationalised afterwards - and it was introduced when there were 3 channels as a means to offer an alternative, radical outlook

I think 1980's TV is a bit different and limited versus 2023

Sure. But that doesn’t change the question: is it adding to the media landscape?

 

[Grendel]

Sure. But that doesn’t change the question: is it adding to the media landscape?

Not to me. Whats it doing for you?

Here is the radical media landscape viewing on offer today

Channel 4 schedule & listings for today and tonight | TV Guide

Today's Channel 4 TV schedule. Check out what's on Channel 4 today, tonight and beyond with our TV guide.

www.tvguide.co.uk

 

[fernandopartridge]

Who is?

I seem to recall you saying you were

 

[rob9872]

I seem to recall you saying you were

I'd best let my boss know then as I've been in the wrong job for the past 25 years as a purchasing manager! I did do AAT when i was in credit control back in the early 90s but not sure they'd want me practicing as an accountant.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I'd best let my boss know then as I've been in the wrong job for the past 25 years as a purchasing manager! I did do AAT when i was in credit control back in the early 90s but not sure they'd want me practicing as an accountant.

Bloody hell Rob it makes my point even more valid, from one purchasing manager to another

 

[skybluetony176]

Sure. But that doesn’t change the question: is it adding to the media landscape?

C4 news is the best news program on TV bar none. You’ve also got the brilliant Despatches. Then you’ve got the comedy, Father Ted, Inbetweeners, Vic Reeves big night out etc etc. Countdown is a national treasure. Then there’s the film arm of it. The film’s its been involved with as a production company is astounding as demonstrated by its Oscar nominations, 11 at the last Oscars alone. Films such as 12 years a slave, three billboards… etc etc. over 100 nominations and over 30 wins. A record for a British company and a company that’s only 40 years old. It’s a bit of a phenomenon and it’s largely if not wholly down to the unique way it’s funded. It would be a crime to lose it over some far right hysterical and failing ideology.

 

[PVA]

This is disgusting from Sunak really.

You might expect this shit from idiots like Gullis and 30p, but from the fucking PM? Sums up the state of things I guess.

So much for the integrity he bangs on about.

 

[Grendel]

This is disgusting from Sunak really.

You might expect this shit from idiots like Gullis and 30p, but from the fucking PM? Sums up the state of things I guess.

So much for the integrity he bangs on about.

 

[PVA]

Erm....OK?

 

[Grendel]

Erm....OK?

I thought it was more amusing than your twitter exclusive.

 

[PVA]

I thought it was more amusing than your twitter exclusive.

Mocking the use of twitter by...replying with a tweet.

Classic.

 

[Grendel]

Mocking the use of twitter by...replying with a tweet.

Classic.

Well that’s kind of my point

 

[PVA]

Well that’s kind of my point

So you think the Prime Minister implying the opposition and the judiciary are on the side of criminal gangs and exploiting people trafficking is perfectly OK?

It's an appalling tweet designed to whip up hate and pander to the very worst people. Which maybe explains why you have no issue with it.

 

[Grendel]

So you think the Prime Minister implying the opposition and the judiciary are on the side of criminal gangs and exploiting people trafficking is perfectly OK?

It's an appalling tweet designed to whip up hate and pander to the very worst people. Which maybe explains why you have no issue with it.

Well oddly enough I wouldn’t have even known about it until you’ve highlighted it

Not especially edifying but not really much different to the deputy labour leader calling Tories racist, misogynistic, homophobic scum - something I don’t think you were too outraged about at the time

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Well oddly enough I wouldn’t have even known about it until you’ve highlighted it

Not especially edifying but not really much different to the deputy labour leader calling Tories racist, misogynistic, homophobic scum - something I don’t think you were too outraged about at the time

You got that tweet?

 

[Grendel]

You got that tweet?

oh that wasn’t a tweet it was said to an audience and unlike this it’s literally her words

Is this news to you?

 

[PVA]

Well oddly enough I wouldn’t have even known about it until you’ve highlighted it

Not especially edifying but not really much different to the deputy labour leader calling Tories racist, misogynistic, homophobic scum - something I don’t think you were too outraged about at the time

The fact you didn't know about it doesn't make it OK.

And there's evidence of Tories being all of those things so yeah that's fair game really.

 

[Grendel]

The fact you didn't know about it doesn't make it OK.

And there's evidence of Tories being all of those things so yeah that's fair game really.

There we have it

 

[PVA]

There we have it

But Johnson is a racist, homophobic, misogynist so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Grendel]

But Johnson is a racist, homophobic, misogynist so I'm not sure what your point is.

1 - Boris Johnson is one man not a whole party

2 - has Mr Johnson been found guilty of any of these matters in a court of law?

 

[Grendel]

So I assume if Mr Starmer had tweeted tories are racist homophobic and hate women this would be acceptable as there is apparently some truth in it?

 

[PVA]

1 - Boris Johnson is one man not a whole party

2 - has Mr Johnson been found guilty of any of these matters in a court of law?

 

[Grendel]

Oh dear

 

[PVA]

So I assume if Mr Starmer had tweeted tories are racist homophobic and hate women this would be acceptable as there is apparently some truth in it?

No that would not be OK (even if I agree with it.)

Rayner calling Johnson a racist/homophobe/misogynist at a Labour conference is entirely different to the PM tweeting that Labour are working with criminal gangs.

There is evidence of one. Not the other.

 

[Grendel]

No that would not be OK (even if I agree with it.)

Rayner calling Johnson a racist/homophobe/misogynist at a Labour conference is entirely different to the PM tweeting that Labour are working with criminal gangs.

There is evidence of one. Not the other.

Mr Johnson isn’t a bunch of people and if there is evidence then a crime has been committed and the police should investigate - do you agree with that?