20
the complex and politically treacherous task of wrestling with regulating the internet, making Channel 4 a private company could present an easy win for Dorries. And one that
Channel 4 being owned by an existing UK broadcaster or foreign media giant may appeal to Dorries’ instincts as a successful businessperson. “There is an argument for the consolidation of UK broadcasters and, if Dorries understands that, she is more likely to privatise Channel 4,” adds the broadcaster.
Nadine Dorries MP would look good from a legacy perspective, as she contemplates a future, and bigger, Cabinet role in Johnson’s administration. “The combination of No 10 and Nadine Dorries makes it more likely that Channel 4 will be privatised. She’s tough, so I think she will be quite fearless about it,” says a senior broadcaster. From the perspective of a culture warrior, what could provide a more appropriate scalp than Channel 4? The station is still seen by those on the right of the political spectrum as synonymous with the well-heeled, liberal metropolitan elite, who, not so long ago, ridiculed the Johnson Government’s approach to climate change in the 2019 general election campaign. Moreover, the prospect of
The required legislation could easily be included in the much-heralded media white paper, now delayed from December to January. Equally pressing is the Online Safety Bill, where Dorries has already issued a typically uncompromising clarion call. In a recent tweet, she warned, “Social media companies: take note now. When harm is caused, we’re coming after it. “The world is watching to see how we legislate to deal with online abuse, harm and disinformation. We will lead the way and we will not disappoint.” However, it is action not rhetoric that will determine Dorries’ success, or otherwise, as culture secretary. And no one needs reminding that DCMS Secretaries of State are more ephemeral than a TikTok video. n
Getty Images
� pathway from my background, from my working-class roots, into that sector, because that pathway has completely disappeared. To me, that’s what levelling up is about.” Is she about to inflict financial pain on the BBC by, in effect, cutting the licence fee? The speculation is that the new level of the fee, negotiated as part of the mid-term Charter review, will be a setback for Director-General Tim Davie and his Chair, Richard Sharp. If, as reports suggest, the fee is frozen at its present level for two years before rising in line with the Consumer Price Index measure of inflation, the BBC’s ability to compete effectively with its rivals looks, to put it mildly, constrained, given the high rate of inflation in the content sector. “Nadine needs a win over the BBC,” says a senior broadcaster, who predicts more tough decisions for Davie as the corporation decides how to deal with what will constitute a financial crisis if the fee is frozen. “A two-year freeze would be awful for the BBC,” says Colin Browne, Chair of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer. “One year would be bad. Either way, the cuts that would need to be made would be visible and audible to viewers and listeners.” Adding to Broadcasting House’s fears is the prospect that the ex-Daily Mail editor, BBC-basher-in-chief Paul Dacre, could be appointed Chair of Ofcom, despite him failing the initial interview process. Away from the licence fee, another broadcasting minefield Dorries needs to negotiate is whether Channel 4 should remain in public ownership. Those who oppose selling the broadcaster might be forgiven for thinking that, with Oliver Dowden and John Whittingdale – both cheerleaders for privatisation – removed from the DCMS, privatising Channel 4 is no longer a priority for the Government. On the contrary, say people who believe the policy comess straight from Downing Street. They think that Dorries will be only too eager and willing to deliver it. Compared with
‘SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES: TAKE NOTE NOW. WHEN HARM IS CAUSED, WE’RE COMING AFTER IT’
