卫报 | 不要卖第四频道


来源:《卫报》

原文刊登日期:2022年4月5日


Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, strikes again. She has restated her intention to push ahead with selling off Channel 4, in order, she says, to allow it to compete with Netflix and Amazon, from which destiny it is currently being “held back”. This makes no sense, and shows a lack of understanding of what these streamers are and what they do; and of what Channel 4 is and does.

翻译

文化部长纳丁·多莉丝再次出击。她重申了自己出售第四频道的意图,她说,这样做是为了让第四频道能够与Netflix和亚马逊竞争,而目前第四频道的命运正被“拖着后腿”。这是毫无意义的,表明她既不懂流媒体,也不懂第四频道。


Why anyone would feel the need to transform Channel 4’s ownership arrangements is a mystery. A Tory government rejected the notion in 2016. Indeed, senior Conservatives, including the former culture secretary Jeremy Hunt, have publicly condemned the idea since Ms Dorries’ latest pronouncement on the matter. What many Tories grasp, but she seems not to, is that Channel 4, though in public ownership, costs the taxpayer nothing, since it raises its own cash and then, crucially, ploughs its revenues back into commissioning. In November she asserted to a parliamentary select committee that the channel is funded by the taxpayer. This is quite simply untrue. It is concerning that the fate of a national broadcaster depends, at least in part, on someone who seems to know so little about it.

翻译

为什么有人会觉得有必要改变第四频道的所有权,这是一个谜。2016年,保守党政府拒绝了这一想法。事实上,自从多莉丝女士最近就此事发表声明以来,包括前文化部长杰里米·亨特在内的资深保守派人士已经公开谴责了这一想法。许多保守党人明白的是,尽管第四频道属于国有,但它不需要纳税人支付任何费用,因为它自己筹集资金,然后,至关重要的是,将其收入重新投入到节目委托制作。11月,她向议会的一个特别委员会宣称,该频道由纳税人出资。这完全不是事实。令人担忧的是,一家全国性广播公司的命运,至少在一定程度上,取决于一个似乎对它知之甚少的人。


As to the potential proceeds of this sale, Ms Dorries claims that they will be spent on “levelling up the creative sector and putting money into independent production and creative skills in priority parts of the country”. The same objective could be achieved much more efficiently by letting Channel 4 remain in public ownership, and continuing to commission material from programme-makers based around the UK. In fact, following its recent move to Leeds, two-thirds of its programming hours are now produced outside London. Even if the government were to lay down conditions with a buyer, it is likely that commitments to regional commissioning, as well as a long-established responsibility to serve diverse and minority audiences, would slip.

翻译

至于这笔交易的潜在收益,多莉丝表示,这笔钱将用于“让创意行业均衡发展,并将资金投入国内重点地区的独立制作和创意技能”。同样的目标可以更有效地实现,那就是让第四频道继续保持国有,并继续委托英国各地的节目制作人制作节目。事实上,在第四频道最近搬到利兹之后,现在有三分之二的节目时长是在伦敦以外制作的。即使政府与买家定下条件,其对地方委托制作的承诺,以及长期以来为不同群体和少数群体服务的责任,也很可能会变差。


It is fair to suggest that the current model of raising revenues from television advertising may not serve the broadcaster for ever. But a sale to a huge overseas player would probably mean the end of British work that it makes at its best. Consider, by way of contrast, the could-be-made-anywhere quality of the material on Netflix; however brilliant the streaming giant’s programmes are, it tends to polish them into a kind of globally acceptable sheen.

翻译

公平地说,目前从电视广告中获得收入的模式可能不会永远能满足第四频道的资金需求。但如果出售给一家大型海外公司,很可能意味着第四频道最擅长的英国作品的终结。与之形成对比的是,想想Netflix上那些随处可制作的高质量内容;无论Netflix的节目多么精彩,它都倾向于将其打磨成一种全球可接受的光彩。


Fortunately, Ms Dorries’ words are not the last on this matter. Channel 4’s privatisation would have to pass through the Commons and, crucially, the Lords. Wiser heads must prevail, and this nonsense – which is nakedly about politics rather than the real needs of a much-loved broadcaster – must be stopped in its tracks.

翻译

幸运的是,这个问题不是多莉丝女士最后说了算。第四频道的私有化必须得到下议院的批准,更重要的是,还要得到上议院的批准。明智的头脑必须占上风,必须阻止这种胡说八道——这种胡说八道纯粹是关于政治,而不是一家广受欢迎的广播公司的真正需求。




意见反馈  ·  辽ICP备2021000238号