Letter: Diversity and bias at Channel 5

Mr Philip Reevell
Thursday 27 April 1995 18:02 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.

Sir: The regulatory powers of the Independent Television Commission in relation to Channel 5 are understated by Michael Grade's article "Save Channel 5 from Murdoch!" and your leader "Who's afraid of Rupert Murdoch?" (both articles, 26 April). In fact, the ITC has two significant areas of discretion where it can award the licence other than on the basis of the highest cash bid. Both the "quality threshold" and "exceptional circumstances" provision within the Channel 5 application to apply are underpinned by the statutory obligation to provide "diversity" within the service.

For instance, it could be argued that any plans - whether those of Sky, Pearson or Virgin - which offer local city or regional elements within the framework of a national channel would better meet the diversity requirement than a simple unified national channel. Applicants have been asked to put forward such proposals under question 4: Local Services in the invitation to apply.

As far as legislation is concerned, it is too late for Channel 5. Rather than try to close that stable door, forthcoming digital television legislation should be framed to encourage new entrance to offer new forms of service.

Yours sincerely,

PHILIP REEVELL

Head of Corporate Affairs

Mersey Television Company

Liverpool

26 May

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