spillover is a bad word. C4 is meant to be "alternative"
Whatever word you choose to describe it though, I don't understand why an extremely well-funded national broadcaster such as the BBC would not be able to meet all possible PSB obligations, such that another network would be required.
Also worth noting that most regional news programmes get ratings many digital channels could only dream of.
Though also worth noting that nationally, if you total up the cost of every regional programme, you end up with some of the most expensive content on British TV.
On ITV, even with relatively high ratings (though not stellar nationally considering their cost), they don't self-fund in ad revenue AIUI, and are subsidised by other shows AIUI.
Also worth noting that most regional news programmes get ratings many digital channels could only dream of.
Though also worth noting that nationally, if you total up the cost of every regional programme, you end up with some of the most expensive content on British TV.
On ITV, even with relatively high ratings (though not stellar nationally considering their cost), they don't self-fund in ad revenue AIUI, and are subsidised by other shows AIUI.
In very narrow terms that is true - Combined Cost per Hour is quite high.
If you use Total cost of programme (including star talent costs, who are often excluded in 'channel' deals from the show total) then many other shows are more expensive - including the single 'the one show' is you count suggested presenter fees
On a cost per viewer basis, ITV regional news (as a whole operation) beats much multichannel content, Sky news, BBC News Ch. On a viewer per show calculation ITV Regionals are more cost effective than original content on much of BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, Five, C4
How many C4 regions are there these days? I know originally there were as many regions on C4 as there were on ITV as until something like 1993, ITV franchisers owned the advertising space on C4 and indeed, ran the playout of ads on the channel (C4 presentation used to send out opt-out pulses to the regional centres, who would insert advertising to C4 before finally handing the signal on to the local transmitters). When C4 became responsible for selling and transmitting their own ad airtime, I think they slimmed the number of regional feeds down to around half a dozen... is this still the case?
How many C4 regions are there these days? I know originally there were as many regions on C4 as there were on ITV as until something like 1993, ITV franchisers owned the advertising space on C4 and indeed, ran the playout of ads on the channel (C4 presentation used to send out opt-out pulses to the regional centres, who would insert advertising to C4 before finally handing the signal on to the local transmitters). When C4 became responsible for selling and transmitting their own ad airtime, I think they slimmed the number of regional feeds down to around half a dozen... is this still the case?
I believe the C4 regions are grouped into the LEMNUS arrangement which I think stands for :
London (including the South, South East, West and South West)
East
Midlands
North
Ulster
Scotland
No Wales - as S4C were the 4th terrestrial channel there.
.... I don't understand why an extremely well-funded national broadcaster such as the BBC would not be able to meet all possible PSB obligations, such that another network would be required.
It is very, very important that a diversity of news sources is maintained at all levels - local and national.
Any organisation that has to make news value judgements is likely to have some degree of direct or indirect bias - in topic selection, reporting angle and presentation. The BBC is no exception - and many would arge is a prime example of it.
A country where the only local news provider on the biggest (yes, still) medium of TV is just the BBC would be in a very bad state.
Already here in the west we have to watch a very distorted news agenda of labour council friendly news stories, enviro tax promotion and anti car bias on BBC West - It is so rigged that in a recent series on Points West to co-incide with a new City coucil CEO it did a 'my city' set of reports with 'real people' showing what they thought about the city and what needed to be done. Problem was the people being passed off as just normal residents were not. One was a man who is a labour activist, Goverment office of the SW worker, who just go a job for...yup the the City council.
To the guys credit he though it was a little too biased when asked, but was told by the producer that 'it's fine.'
So, more that one editorial voice in a region is essential. The BBC alone will not do.
.... I don't understand why an extremely well-funded national broadcaster such as the BBC would not be able to meet all possible PSB obligations, such that another network would be required.
It is very, very important that a diversity of news sources is maintained at all levels - local and national.
Any organisation that has to make news value judgements is likely to have some degree of direct or indirect bias - in topic selection, reporting angle and presentation. The BBC is no exception - and many would arge is a prime example of it.
A country where the only local news provider on the biggest (yes, still) medium of TV is just the BBC would be in a very bad state.
Already here in the west we have to watch a very distorted news agenda of labour council friendly news stories, enviro tax promotion and anti car bias on BBC West - It is so rigged that in a recent series on Points West to co-incide with a new City coucil CEO it did a 'my city' set of reports with 'real people' showing what they thought about the city and what needed to be done. Problem was the people being passed off as just normal residents were not. One was a man who is a labour activist, Goverment office of the SW worker, who just go a job for...yup the the City council.
To the guys credit he though it was a little too biased when asked, but was told by the producer that 'it's fine.'
So, more that one editorial voice in a region is essential. The BBC alone will not do.
I don't disagree at all - and frankly, I'm relieved to hear someone else suggest that a state-owned broadcaster can be biased just like any other media provider. I do have two points though:
1/ While competition is important, it isn't the role of government to create competitors. You either create multiple government providers doing the same thing (which is wasteful in terms of public expenditure) or you could end up forcing firms to provide services which aren't commercially viable. These are likely to be sub-standard, and indeed more open to being compromised by bias (either intentional or unintentional).
2/ Even if the BBC were the only regional TV news provider, there are still alternative sources of local news. Radio services (commercial ones anyway - obviously the BBC provides much radio news as well) are likely to be an effective substitute, as are local newspapers. Even the internet can play a part in local areas in ensuring diversity of views and opinions.
At any rate, if Channel 4 wanted to provide regional services, I don't believe that would be a bad thing - even if at the same time ITV were reducing their local output.
I believe the C4 regions are grouped into the LEMNUS arrangement which I think stands for :
London (including the South, South East, West and South West)
East
Midlands
North
Ulster
Scotland
No Wales - as S4C were the 4th terrestrial channel there.
I may be wrong on which is which.
London is stand alone. 'East' basically covers the Anglia, Meridian, HTV (W and Wales), Westcountry, and Channel TV ITV regions. Oh, and last year Oxford was moved from the 'Midlands' macro, to the 'East' one.
I'm told Wales has not been split off yet because of marketing reasons. A large proportion of SE Wales still have Mendip aerials, and C4 would rather follow the analogue pattern despite being unsure how many Welsh homes are watching them digitally. I suspect it will change after DSO.