In 1982, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government established Channel 4 in order to create an independent television production sector in the UK. Unlike the BBC or ITV, it was not to make any of its own programmes, not even its flagship Channel 4 News. All over the UK, independent companies sprang up to make its content. In the 40 years since, they have made billions of pounds – not just for themselves but also for Britain, selling their wares around the world. And, unlike the BBC, they have spoken with many voices, bringing diverse and radical ideas to the fore which had barely been heard before in mainstream broadcasting. Yesterday, Boris Johnson’s Conservative government announced it was selling off the channel, claiming that by doing so it would boost independent production companies. This makes no sense. Instead of Channel 4 being a publicly-owned organisation that pumps hundreds of millions of pounds a year into the independent sector, it is being sold off, almost certainly to a giant TV production company, possibly from overseas. It will be in the interests of that company to make as many of its own programmes as it can and retain the rights in them. Many people have never understood Channel 4’s business model, and among them is the culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, the minister who announced yesterday that selling off Channel 4 would boost the independent sector. Appearing before the culture select committee last November, she said it was right that the government should evaluate the channel’s long-term financial viability because Channel 4 was in receipt of public funding. She looked embarrassed when the Conservative MP Damian Green pointed out to her that Channel 4 gains its income from advertising, not the public coffers. How can a woman who didn’t even know what the organisation’s business model was claim to be motivated by protecting its finances? Of course, as a publicly-owned organisation, Channel 4 also does not make a profit, pumping all its income back into programming, whereas its new owner will rightly expect a profit. The government claims privatisation is needed so Channel 4 can borrow money to compete with Netflix and Amazon. This also shows a misunderstanding both of the purpose of Channel 4 and of the industry. Channel 4 is not there to compete with Netflix and Amazon. It is there to provide public service programming which promotes discussion and debate. I love Bridgerton. I watched the entire first series twice, the second time on mute so I could concentrate solely on the dresses. But I didn’t learn much from Bridgerton about the government’s levelling up agenda. The gorgeous people dancing in those huge ballrooms appeared unaffected by concerns about how to heat them in the energy crisis. One might as well say Netflix and Amazon cannot compete with Channel 4. They have to make content that appeals to a global audience. Channel 4 makes programmes for UK audiences, about the specific concerns and interests of people here. What would be the public benefit in Channel 4 borrowing huge sums to make costume dramas? It won every award going for It’s a Sin. It’s worrying that this government thinks all problems can be solved by borrowing lots of money. We can expect to be reassured that any new buyer will be forced to carry serious programmes such as news and current affairs. But don’t be fooled when the details are announced. Channel 4 News, which is made by the independent company ITN, is one hour long, goes out in primetime and costs a significant amount of money. About a third of its output is international, and it specialises in big, difficult stories such as its investigation into Cambridge Analytica. Will the government say the new buyer must retain that unique news programme? Or will it say merely that a news programme must be carried? Even if the rules state that Channel 4 News must be well-funded and in primetime, how long will it be before any new buyer starts complaining that this is undermining its profits? We have seen that sort of thing happen again and again in privatised companies. And what will happen to important series such as Unreported World, which produce stories and perspectives not seen anywhere else in the UK? The greater the demands placed on the new buyer in terms of provision of high-quality public service programming, the lower the price will be that the government can charge, so it has an interest in restricting requirements. Dorries says a significant portion of the money raised from the sale will go into boosting “creative training”. At present, independent production companies making programmes for Channel 4 provide people with actual jobs, not “creative training”. Channel 4 does, indeed, need to develop new models to sustain its future. The success of All 4, the biggest free streaming service in the UK, is one good example. But it is not an organisation in critical trouble: its programme budget this year is more than £700m for the first time. The sell-off won’t benefit the independent production sector and won’t benefit public service TV. So, who will it benefit? One man in particular will do well out of it: Boris Johnson. Along with the promise to abolish the BBC licence fee, it’s a nice bit of red meat to throw to his rightwing supporters, who are currently unhappy with him. Those two actions together threaten to undermine one of this country’s most successful industries and reduce the level of democratic debate. And speaking of levels, how will it help the government’s levelling up agenda? Currently two-thirds of Channel 4’s main channel content is commissioned from companies in the nations and regions, and 55% of its spend on new content comes from the nations and regions. Are we to believe the new owners will want to share their profits round the country like that? Dorothy Byrne is the former head of news and current affairs at Channel 4 and president of Murray Edwards College, Cambridge