There are similarities between Channel 4 and an independent film production company to a certain extent. What Channel 4 broadcasts is similar to the movies that an independent film company would produce. An independent production company takes risks in the genre of film that they create, the narrative and the scenes within it that may contain something controversial back in the 80's. This is similar to Channel 4 and how they would broadcast a program which contains something that the audience will talk about, in their Remit they include innovation, experimentation and creativity. The experimentation is where they would include controversial subjects like homosexuality and racism.
Also Channel 4's Remit discusses that they will appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society. This means that they will be targeting a range of audiences instead of the same audience that hollywood production companies would target to ensure their returns of finance. This is similar to how an independent production company targets a small audience which isn't part of the crowd, they type of people which would be diverse to the common population.
How do you think the move in 1993 to being a more commercially motivated broadcaster, with the ability to sell their own advertising space, affected Channel 4's acquisition and commissioning decisions?
I think that Channel 4's decision making changed for the wrong reasons in 1993. The fact that they would now be getting commissions for selling advertising space made them greedy for revenue therefore they began to forget their Remit and how they were supposed to broadcast innovative and creative programs and appeal to a diverse audience and society. Therefore they began to broadcast programs which they knew would target a mass audience so that they gain more viewers which lead to the channels ratings increasing meaning its popularity would sky, which would then enable them to get more commissions as advertisers would recognise that buying advertisement space on Channel 4 would increase the audience's awareness of their product/service and therefore increase their sales.
In what ways do you think Channel 4 have lead to innovations in British Television?
Channel 4 have lead innovations in British Television. For example, Channel 4 News triggered other broadcasters to begin with news programmes to educate and inform their viewers of recent events. Also Channel 4 lead in News programs popularity as it is seen to be the least biased and mostly viewed news programs on British Television. In the 1980's Channel 4 had developed a reputation as a broadcaster at the cutting edge of youth programming with shows like 'The Tube'. This lead to channels like ITV beginning to create programs which targeted a certain group of audience with different programs. Channel 4 was seen to give a voice to a part of the British population which didn't have one, for example the children who call graffiti an art, instead of an act of Vandalism.
But Channel 4's desperation to be the leaders of innovation in British Television lead to them showing controversial content like Racism and Homosexuality which wasn't perfectly accepted by society at the time.
How has Channel 4 strayed from the ethos of it's original remit as a public service broadcaster to showcase innovation and diversity in television?
Channel 4 strayed from the ethos of its remit as a public service broadcasters by becoming part of the crowd, and making profit maximisation their first priority even though they have claimed to stay as a broadcaster that shows innovation and diversity in the programs they broadcast. An example of this is Big Brother. Even though we can argue that BB is a innovative program which is different to all others as a reality show, and contains a diverse range of people to cater all audiences, it is mainly due to the ratings that Big Brother has brought, that Channel 4 have continued to broadcast it. I can say this as BB has created a lot of controversy through out its time on air, this is because it is aired live, therefore the people in the show are not playing a role, but themselves, and show real human emotions which occur as normal. They get angry like normal people, and get into arguments just like everyone. This is a reason in which audiences are so fascinated by the show and continue to watch it. In BB a controversial moment occured when a Celebrity Big Brother was on and Jade Goody was seen to say a racial remark towards Shilpa Shetty. Even though this occurred, and Channel 4 were in risk of being fined for this content being broadcasted, they continued to broadcast BB for further seasons, as it brought revenue to the channel. This is an example of how Channel 4 have strayed away from its original remit to satisfy a diverse audience and be innovative, but instead they broadcast the programs which attract the most common british viewers.
Does the factual programming on Channel 4 today have the same educational value as it did 25 years ago?
I believe that Channel 4 has lost a lot of its educational value in the past 25 years. Back then programs were specifically aimed at increasing a individuals knowledge on a certain interesting subject, for example A documentary on a specific breed of Animal. But now Channel 4 broadcasts programs like 'The F Word' in which Gordon Ramsay continuously swears at the kitchen staff, therefore creating that identity of himself and being passed on to the title of the show. This program doesn't have much educational value but instead contains entertaining aspects like when Ramsay begins to get angry and swear in the kitchen. A more suitable program which would fulfull the the Ethos of Channel 4 would contain more focus on the cooking and how to make it and other things like how to run a restaurant etc. This suggests that Channel 4 have lost the seriousness and importance of thier educational programs by turning them into a joke of which it brings just as much entertainment as educational value, therefore these programs have become less factual and more commercial and popular for the audience which could also lead to people saying that British Television is a cause of a less educated society.
Are there any arguments to say that Channel 4 still, in some ways maintain it's original remit?
In certain aspects Channel 4 do still maintain their original remit. They still continue to have innovation in their content, for example the Dispatches Series, and Extraordinary People. This is an example of programs which contain a factual and interesting aspect which will appeal to less of a main stream audience which want to see something different, they type that don't mind watching things that may make other think urghh! It also broadcasts many independent production companies movies as Film 4 is a subsidiary of Channel 4, they are entitled to free broadcast on Channel 4. A distinctive characteristic is seen in Channel 4, to broadcast a wide range of programs instead of the same genre of show through out the day.
Is Channel 4's ownership of Film 4 Productions an example of Horizontal or Vertical Integration?
I believe that this is an example of vertical integration. This is because whilst Film 4 are a production company which create the movie from start to finish, Channel 4 is a British Television Broadcaster therefore they are part of the exhibition sector of the film industry whereas Film 4 is involved in the Production sector. Whilst they both are part of the same single entity of Channel 4, they both work on different jobs for the same movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment