(with the possible exception of TVS which was going down the tube financially in any case)
Cheeky beggar!
but it is true especially after they bought the debt ridden MTM in the US - it had no-chance of ever turning that company around. MTM was the death-nail for TVS in both financial terms and the ITV franchising terms
(with the possible exception of TVS which was going down the tube financially in any case)
Cheeky beggar!
but it is true especially after they bought the debt ridden MTM in the US - it had no-chance of ever turning that company around. MTM was the death-nail for TVS in both financial terms and the ITV franchising terms
It's ironic that the reason they bought MTM was partly the reason for such a dramatic change to the whole franchise system really.
In retrospect, all Maggie managed to achieve with the 1990 Broadcasting act was a quick snatch-and-grab tax on the ITV companies, and a resulting period of instability from which ITV has never fully recovered, just at the time they needed stability more than anything else. This allowed Murdoch to become stronger, which was probably Thatcher's aim all along.
The 1990 Broadcasting Act, as anyone with common sense should know, existed solely to punish ITV for one programme that got too near the knuckle for Thatcher's liking (Death On The Rock); ultimately it was the viewers that were punished. Only a year before the Broadcasting Bill was introduced, Thatcher went on radio saying how she thought British TV was the best in the world (there was a sound clip on MHP, but it might still not be available ATM).
The change of government in 1997 could have been a great opportunity to sweep away the Broadcasting Act 1990 and its worst excesses. Unfortunately, Tory Tony embraced the Mad Cow's free market ideals and instead created a new Broadcasting Bill which expanded on it's predecessor's principles. Now, our honourable leader has such a cosy relationship with Howling Mad Murdoch he doesn't dare enact any legislation which might hurt the greedy Aussie without first consulting him!
The emasculation of the broadcasting unions has undoubtedly helped ITV plc on the road to becoming a single company. A stronger union influence is unlikely to have prevented the amalgamation of ITV, but it sure could have made it a hell of a lot more difficult especially where redundancies were concerned. OK, so the unions had too much power in the 70s and 80s but now they are merely a token presence with broadcasters under no obligation to recognise them. The RMT maintains a strong presence in the rail industry, so why can't BECTU in television?
I'm sure most of them were public companies, as is ITV plc (
public
limited company).
That's true, but that doesn't make them public companies. It just means that the company's shares are publically available to own and the shareholders have limited liability.
Public companys are known as corporations, hence The British Broadcasting Corporation, The Channel 4 Television Corporation etc
There will NOT be any more franchise rounds. That's it. It's over. Everyone in the industry knows this, and has done for years. This is it.
Indeed not Peter, Ofcom did some of the dirty deed on the quiet back in 2004/2005 and have also arranged for new digital licences. All abit of a sham really after the "smash-and-grab" of 1992! but "he-ho!", the government of the day make the rules so they re-write them to suit the current circumstances. However, some are still up for consideration.
Here is an extract of the suitably "weasel-worded" excuse from our "regulator and guardian" (Ofcom):
I'm sure most of them were public companies, as is ITV plc (
public
limited company).
That's true, but that doesn't make them public companies. It just means that the company's shares are publically available to own and the shareholders have limited liability.
Public companys are known as corporations, hence The British Broadcasting Corporation, The Channel 4 Television Corporation etc
Of course it makes them public companies (they're owned by members of the public). The BBC isn't a company, neither is Channel 4. A private company is one that is privately owned, e.g. Virgin Atlantic. They can do pretty much as they like, no need for public accountability (because the public doesn't own them) as long as they act within the law. A public company (e.g. ITV) has various obligations about the information it discloses.