Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

No laughing matter

Greater variety in programming? Hardly. The Communications Bill could wipe out original comedy, Channel 4's chief executive tells Ian Burrell

Monday 05 May 2003 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Think of British television over the past 50 years. What is it that sticks in the mind? "It's the great situation comedies," says Mark Thompson, chief executive of Channel 4. "Whether it's Dad's Army or Rising Damp or Father Ted. They would not exist without the non-commercial investment of the BBC and Channel 4. And that would be an enormous loss."

Thompson is warning of an impending crisis in comedy, the genre that he believes produces the most definitive programmes in any generation of British television. He believes that government proposals for transforming the rules of ownership in television and radio threaten the future production of groundbreaking comedy programmes and could also jeopardise romantic comedies in British film and the market for live stand-up. "I'm not sure you would have a Four Weddings and a Funeral without a television comedy industry paid for by Channel 4 and the BBC."

He believes that plans for consolidation of ownership within the broadcast media, as set out in the Communications Bill, pose a danger to costly programming, with comedy being the category most at risk.

Thompson disagrees with observers who claim that the planned changes in the bill will lead to a wider variety of programmes on television. "I think that the level of meaningful choice in British television is related to diversity in broadcasters and diversity in funding methods," he says. "I think the idea that reducing the diversity in terms of numbers of broadcasters is going to lead to more choice is just wrong-headed." He warns of a "question mark" over whether channels will in future retain sufficiently large programme-making budgets to enable them to commission comedy, as well as "high-quality drama and landmark documentary".

Fears have already been voiced that an American-owned ITV would lead to a flood of programmes taken from the shelves of television libraries in the States, with minimal making of British programmes. If Sky were able to purchase Five then there is little past evidence of a commitment by either organisation to making British comedy.

Thompson says: "It's very hard for channels with small budgets – Channel 5 and Sky One would be good examples – to afford to do scripted comedy and as a result they don't. ITV does very little scripted comedy."

Changes in media ownership could place additional pressures on public service broadcasters. A combined Sky and Five could out-muscle Channel 4 in the battle to sign the lucrative American series that help to fund Thompson's comedies. Thompson says that if new owners were allowed to take over ITV and Five, as allowed for in the bill, there would be no reason to expect expensive programming.

"I do think there's a slight naivety about the idea that new owners are bound to invest more money in programming than previous owners," he says. "It seems to me that any new owner of Channel 3 or Channel 5 is likely to want to extract some value out."

Thompson, the former head of BBC Television, is already frustrated by the copycat tactics of rivals who he believes allow Channel 4 to take risks in commissioning programmes and then make their own versions of shows that are successful. He says: "One hears from [independent production companies] being called in by some of our rivals, saying, 'Can you do us a Wife Swap or a No Going Back or a Grand Designs?' That kind of spirit of thinking it's OK to steal anything is probably stronger now than it's ever been. People are under competitive pressure."

Although Thompson doesn't name names, the programmes he is referring to are not difficult to identify. BBC2's The Good, the Bad and the Ugly bears more than a passing resemblance to Faking It. The same channel's Living the Dream is very similar to No Going Back. ITV's I Want That House recalls A Place in the Sun. Meanwhile, the digital channel Discovery Animal Planet has made a version of Wife Swap, only with pets, and the BBC recently advertised on Ceefax for families who would be interested in swapping lives for two weeks. Thompson thinks his staff must regard the imitation as a form of flattery. He says: "Channel 4 should strive to be a creative leader and by definition there will be other channels that follow you."

The need to "be first" was one of Thompson's new watchwords for Channel 4 outlined at the announcement last week of annual results that showed that the company had turned a £28m loss into a £16.5m profit.

Another of Thompson's core values is "to make trouble". One programme that has attracted more than its share of controversy to the channel is Big Brother, which starts its fourth run later this month. As Thompson exhorts his colleagues to get back to the station's "roots", he stops short of saying that the most notorious of all reality shows has taken Channel 4 off its original course. He claims the emergence of the programme was a "breath of fresh air in British television". He does admit, however, that Channel 4 allowed Big Brother to dominate the station's branding.

"I think there have been moments when Channel 4 almost let it seem that Big Brother was the only programme on the channel or the only programme that the channel cared about," he says. "I think sometimes when Channel 4 was talking about what it was doing it sometimes left people with the impression that Big Brother ticked the innovation box so strongly that you didn't have to think about anything else."

Thompson, who took over at Channel 4 in March last year, understandably prefers to talk about more recent innovative programming. Jamie's Kitchen, the story of chef Jamie Oliver's attempts to employ untrained young people in an upmarket restaurant, was a programme of which he is clearly particularly proud. Channel 4 won all four awards for factual programming at this year's Baftas. These included best current affairs programme for the documentary Young, Nazi and Proud and best drama serial for Shackleton, the story of the explorer's polar travels.

With Horseferry Road awash with profits and gongs, Thompson can rightly celebrate a successful year. But it has been achieved at a price. At last week's launch of the company's annual report, Channel 4 bosses said that a programme of job cuts, introduced by Thompson, would eventually reduce staff levels from 1,200 to around 900.

Later, sitting behind his desk, the comedy-loving chief executive disarmingly takes on something of the persona of David Brent, the Ricky Gervais character from the BBC's The Office, as he says: "I think we can get it down to 850".

Only Mark Thompson, head of a new, lean and focused Channel 4, is clearly very serious.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in