LONDON, June 17 — First came “Embarrassing Illnesses,” in which doctors advised young Britons on how to deal with ailments like anal warts. That was followed by “Big Brother,” the reality television series in which misfits are locked into a house and prodded until their behavior turns embarrassing.
The prime-time lineup on Britain’s Channel 4 last Thursday illustrates the sometimes awkward balancing act that the British broadcaster performs as it seeks to fulfill public service obligations while satisfying the demands of the commercial marketplace.
Channel 4 occupies an unusual hybrid position in the television landscape.
Like its bigger brother, the BBC, it is publicly owned, a status that carries with it a host of regulatory demands for airworthy, though not always popular, programming. Unlike the BBC and other European public broadcasters, however, Channel 4 receives no public financing, raising all of its nearly £1 billion, or $1.98 billion, budget from advertising and sponsorships.
When Channel 4 started broadcasting in 1982, its only rival for TV advertising was ITV, the first and still the biggest commercial broadcaster in Britain. But now, as new channels proliferate, Channel 4 has to try harder to make ends meet — too hard, some critics say.
The Sunday Times columnist A. A. Gill recently described the Channel 4 use of ratings and advertising grabbers like “Big Brother” to help pay for public service programs as “a bit like mugging kids to subsidize the arts.”
Though Channel 4 was set up as an edgy, risk-taking alternative to the more staid BBC, several of its recent shows have also pushed the envelope too far for the comfort of British royals and regulators.
Some of the sharpest criticism of Channel 4 programming preceded the broadcaster’s decision to show a documentary this month on the death of Princess Diana, which included pictures of the car crash in Paris in which she died. Channel 4 stuck with the program despite objections from her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry.
Last year, Channel 4 courted controversy with “Death of a President,” a mock documentary showing a fictional assassination of George W. Bush. In January, Channel 4 drew headlines all over the world when Shilpa Shetty, a Bollywood actress, was subjected to what was seen as racist bullying during an episode of “Celebrity Big Brother.” More recently, during a new edition of “Big Brother,” another contestant was evicted for using a racial epithet.
Ofcom, the British media regulator, censured Channel 4 for the incident involving Ms. Shetty, finding that it had exercised “serious editorial misjudgment.” Last week, the regulator hinted at a re-examination of the role of Channel 4 as it detailed plans for a review of British public service broadcasting.
“We need to significantly improve our ability to monitor and to assess its remit and ensure it is delivered effectively across a full range of programs,” Ed Richards, chief executive of Ofcom, said in a statement.
Ofcom did not cite any Channel 4 programs in its statement, and so the broadcaster hailed the announcement as a victory. That is because Ofcom appeared to open the door to the possibility of granting some of the public financing that Channel 4 executives have been loudly seeking.
Ofcom acknowledged that Channel 4 was likely to come under “significant pressure on its ability to deliver its public service broadcasting remit” around 2010, as Britain prepared for a full switch to digital broadcasting two years later. A report by an outside consulting firm, L.E.K., recently concluded that Channel 4 revenue, in the worst case, could fall short of its budgetary needs by more than £100 million.
There has even been speculation that the government might try to privatize the broadcaster, freeing it from its public service constraints, but also ruling out any possibility of public subsidies.
Advertising at the broadcaster’s main channel fell last year, but Channel 4 largely made up for the shortfall with new revenue from digital channels and other sources.
Some of the programs that have drawn the most scrutiny of late have also been among the most-watched shows on Channel 4, making them the most attractive to advertisers.
David Puttnam, who serves as deputy chairman of the board overseeing Channel 4, explained the problem in comments reported recently by British newspapers.
“I am not proud of the ‘Big Brother’ row — I am not even proud of ‘Big Brother,’ ” Mr. Puttnam, who produced the film “Chariots of Fire,” said. “But ‘Big Brother’ accounts for 15 percent of the total revenue that keeps Channel 4 afloat.”
Matt Baker, a spokesman for Channel 4, said the actual percentage was slightly less than 15 percent, though he declined to specify. But he added that “Big Brother” helped finance public service programming, including the only hourlong nightly news program on any of the mainstream British channels.
“If the broadcasting world were defined by what parliamentarians favored, we’d probably only be allowed to do shows about them,” Mr. Baker said.
