Channel 4 would never have discovered that the Paralympics or shows such as Gogglebox could be hits if it had been run for profit, its chief executive, David Abraham, has said.

The government is considering whether to privatise Channel 4, with US companies such as Scripps Network and Discovery – where Abraham previously worked – mooted as likely buyers. It has said any sale would maintain the channel’s remit to take risks on programming and serve specific audiences such as young people and ethnic minorities.

However, Abraham told an event on Channel 4’s future held at parliament as part of Lord Puttnam’s inquiry into public service broadcasting that commercial pressures would undermine the channel’s remit and ability to take risks.

“I worked at Discovery for seven years ... I would not be relaxed that a company right out of New York that is maximising in terms of shareholders and has global synergies it needs to make would necessarily understand or care about commitments that could be made at the start of the sale process,” he said.

“My job at Discovery was to maximise the [profits] of the channel I was running .... I would do far more entertainment programming, I would cut the news. I would cut all of film, I would do barely any comedy because it is not very economic. I would probably not do as much original drama.”

Abraham said that although the competitiveness of the global TV market was driving investment in quality programming, many shows would never get to the screen in the first place. “You don’t discover these extraordinary things like Googlebox or the Paralympics, you don’t discover these unless you have the luxury to take greater risks that the absence of a profit line gives you,” he said.



“One of my jobs were I to report again to Washington would be to lobby persistently for the reduction of the remit I signed up to on day one.”

Though the government has not officially said it wants to privatise Channel 4, culture secretary John Whittingdale indicated this weekend that he supported a sale.

“I’m looking at the options, but would argue that Channel 4 is being restrained by not being privatised. It means it has less deep pockets,” he told the Sunday Times.

Abraham said the comments indicated privatisation was now “government policy”, adding that he had been disappointed with the way the government had handled its review. He said the channel had been told last summer that privatisation was not being being considered before the proposals were revealed in September after a civil servant was photographed carrying a document setting out options for a sale.

He added that while he expected it would take time for commercial pressures to undermine Channel 4’s ability to produce less commercially focused content across its schedules if it were privatised, the ability of its news coverage to explore issues of public interest would be affected much more quickly.

“I know from direct personal experience that when you are running commercially funded channels there are places you do not go,” he said.

“I think those effects would be fairly immediate. I would get phone calls saying they would rather cancel this investigation ... because it would be inconvenient.”

Conservative peer Lord Inglewood, a former chair of the Lords communications committee, echoed Abraham’s concerns about the impact privatisation would have on Channel 4’s remit. He said that while he was sceptical of public ownership, Channel 4 worked effectively as a third sector player.

“It would be very likely the remit would come under pressure,” he said. “Shareholders if they put something in they want something back and after all that’s perfectly reasonable”

He added: “We seem to be approaching this particular topic [as if] Channel 4 is going to be privatised and finding reasons not to do it. We should start from the premise Channel 4 is doing rather well, why are we going to change it?”