As I've said before, I believe that Channel 4 should make its status clear. Every Channel 4 ident should clearly say 'Channel 4 - a state owned and subsidised company'. Indeed, to make it clear to the public what companies are in this boat e.g. Northern Rock, a new domain should be commissioned for them and by law they should use URLs only in that domain. I suggest bob for
Bailed out businesses
Bailed out bozos
Bailed out Barleys (in this particular case)
As I've said before, I fail to see the point of Channel 4. There has been a certain amount of wittering about preserving Channel 4 News for the nation, however clearly a clause in a broadcasting bill or similar saying 'The BBC shall commission a suitably up-market news bulletin from ITN with a budget of x pounds and show it at 7 p.m. on BBC 4' should not be beyond the wit of badger. Beyond this, Channel 4 has outlived its original purpose, the aims being
1. To encourage diversity
2. To establish an independent TV production sector in the U.K.
For point 1 I have one thing to say 'YouTube'. For point 2 the responses are
a) Clearly on some level it succeeded since this is the model that everyone has adopted pretty much. These days the radical alternative, if the government wanted to encourage one, would be an organisation that owned facilities, employed people full time with reasonable terms and conditions and training, and produced its own programmes in house.
b) And why the bleeding hell did we want one of them anyway? Clearly the cultural and economic life of Britain is much the better for it. Ha ha ha. A few ex-Marxists now in their 50s and 60s got rich, and the industry became casualised with the shitty conditions one would expect, and of course relying on interns i.e. you can only get a break if Mummy and Daddy can support you whilst you're working for nothing. Then, if you're lucky, you might get a job. More likely you will find the next generation of interns being used.