What happens next?
C4 board to question executives over Big Brother
Duncan's darkest hour
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the Celebrity Big Brother fiasco for Channel 4, all of this has perhaps helped to emphasise a variety of issues relating to the current state of UK television.
Firstly, both Channel 4 chairman Luke Johnson and chief executive Andy Duncan could have better exploited the situation to their own ends; after all, the very fact that Channel 4 has to rely on Big Brother for much of its revenue should point to the fact that Channel 4 needs a greater degree of financial stability in the long term.
This reliance on Big Brother also highlights the weakness of Channel 4's current schedule as a whole, so maybe that was the one thing that prevented this event from being managed properly from a PR perspective; you can't really admit a fault in one area if in turn it reveals a stack of weaknesses elsewhere.
Secondly, the whole affair has laid bare the inefficencies of Ofcom as a regulator, which to be truthful isn't really a fault of Ofcom but relates to what its statutory powers are and how it has been directed to use them. Will this chain of events ultimately lead to an Ofcom with tougher powers?
But does the regulator actually need an overhaul? Yes, but probably not for the same reasons that politicians might conclude from this whole incident, though it remains to be seen whether they will correctly address the problems behind the current regulatory regime.
We must also remember that Channel 4 has been controversial on several occasions in the past (it's in its remit to be controversial to a degree), and it would be a shame if some of its more challenging output were to be surpressed as a result, especially in the field of politics where it might upset a government or two as a consequence.
However at the same time you cannot give commercial channels the carte blanche freedom to transmit what they want with just the prospect of a fine or other punishment after the event, since by then it is ultimately too late, and less scrupulous channels have already exploited this fact as a loophole in "cut and run" operations before being shut down.
Ultimately the whole issue is all about programme quality, and the political expedient of letting commercially-funded broadcasters do what they want with "light touch regulation" means that programme quality has been frequently sacrificed on the altar of higher ratings; just look at what ITV1 now produces for the ultimate byproduct of this philosophy.
All this has also highlighted the communication divisions between broadcasters and independent programme producers, with fast-moving reality TV shows being particularly susceptible to last-minute decisions being made by producers at ground level that don't involve the broadcaster - Luke Johnson and Andy Duncan probably had no answers because of this.
As well as a communication chain breakdown, it also illustrates the different priorities that broadcasters and independent production companies have when working apart from each other. In nearly all cases this isn't an issue - the broadcaster likes an idea and trusts the producer to deliver the goods - but when it does go wrong the results can be catastrophic.
Endemol's task was to maximise ratings from a tired old format, and arguably it was only doing its job properly by manipulating events in order to do this, but this ultimately ended up clashing with Channel 4's image as a public service broadcaster. The age-old question that became apparent is: "how far is too far"?
Much of television is all about sleight of hand; for example, many viewers might be shocked to learn that certain studio-based programmes aren't transmitted live, or for that matter a supposedly live programme can also contain prerecorded segments that are studio-based therefore appear to be live even if they aren't (Watchdog being just one example of this).
Although some of the blame for this fiasco can be directed at Channel 4, what about the show's producers Endemol? Obviously Endemol and Big Brother are part and parcel of the same thing, so unlike some formats where the broadcaster commissions one of their own ideas using a producer, in this case you practically speaking can't have one without the other.
At this point Channel 4 better heed the warnings that were ignored by ITV to its cost but in a different respect, namely that tired old formats are just that and there is only so much you can do to them without overstepping the boundaries of taste and decency.
ITV has in recent years ploughed on with the same old ideas with numerous minor modifications in an often vain attempt to keep them fresh, but Channel 4's past history of being controversial seemed to mitigate against a more cautious approach in this particular instance so it seemed that more drastic action was required in this case.
Channel 4 should predominantly feature fresh, high quality and edgy programming, and Big Brother fails comprehensively on at least two of these points. If we are to also include a degree of moral responsibilty then during the past week it has easily failed on all three counts, even if it had the beneficial side effect of highlighting the whole complex issue of racism.
Still at least the BBC may no longer have to worry about its licence fee being 'top-sliced' for Channel 4's benefit, but that's another story.
