Channel 4, the British broadcaster that airs The Great British Bake Off and the Paralympics, is a peculiar beast. It is owned by the government but funded by advertising. Such idiosyncrasies seemed to escape Nadine Dorries, the new culture secretary, at a recent parliamentary committee hearing that touched on the future of the channel. The government is considering selling off the broadcaster which, not entirely unrelatedly, has been a thorn in its side recently. This is important to remember when considering that Dorries’ department blocked the reappointment of two members of Channel 4’s board. It is the latest skirmish in a broader culture war, and indicative of a worrying pattern of government heavy-handedness in what are meant to be arm’s length cultural institutions.
Every government can influence appointments to boards of bodies that benefit from public ownership or money, and governments of every stripe have assiduously inserted supporters into plum roles. But experienced trustees across the arts report that politicisation is now more overt, as the government tries to reverse what it sees as overwhelming liberal bias. The suggestion of funding cuts lingers for those who do not toe the party line. That sets a sinister precedent.
In Channel 4’s case, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee has twice this year declined to sign off the reappointment of board members, leaving the channel that has a duty to represent diverse communities with an exclusively white board, at least temporarily. The intervention not only sends a signal as Channel 4’s chair prepares to step down but also as DCMS consults on its potential sell-off. That has sparked concern that a privatised Channel 4 would go heavy on populist offerings and short on current affairs. The latter includes government critique: when Boris Johnson, the prime minister, refused to appear at a televised debate, the channel put a block of melting ice in his place.
But Channel 4 is not an isolated example. The government finessed the application process for the chair of the media regulator to favour its preferred candidate and former editor of the right-leaning Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, only for him to withdraw. Separately, the BBC — which is currently in negotiations with the government over its licence fee — found its choice for a senior editorial role, Jess Brammar, overtly questioned by a board member with ties to Downing Street because of her supposed leftwing views.
Trustees report that personal views posted on social media are vetted by DCMS when it comes to appointments at arms-length cultural bodies, with past criticism of Brexit being enough to blackball candidates. The row over whether to display statues of contentious historic figures is also a flashpoint. In some cases, candidates have been required to pledge their support for the government’s position of retaining and explaining statues. Dorries’ predecessor, Oliver Dowden, told publicly funded museums last year that they should back the government’s position, reminding them of their funding status at a time when government spending was being reviewed. That prompted Ed Vaizey, a former Tory culture minister, to express alarm at the government’s “anti-woke agenda”, warning of the consequences “if what were once curatorial decisions are taken over by ministers”.
Vaizey is right. Both the government and trustees are merely temporary custodians of cultural institutions that exist for the broader public good. The bodies are structured at arm’s length for good reason. DCMS ought to preside with a light touch over culture, not with an iron fist over culture wars.
Channel 4 falls victim to intensifying culture wars
Pinoy Variant