Kevin Lygo's remarks to Broadcast magazine about Celebrity Big Brother do not appear to be particularly smart, considering that he and his boss, Andy Duncan, are not yet out of the woods. To say that the present series was "in danger of being the most boring BB that we'd had in many years -maybe ever" and that "we were thinking 'oh dear -what can we do?' " suggest that he almost wished that the Jade Goody-Shilpa Shetty controversy had kicked off. He will need to make it clear, pretty swiftly, that it was not the intention to stoke a race row to win viewers.

Mr Lygo, of course, is the man who bet the channel's schedules heavily on Big Brother, with a record-breaking run last summer. This year it will not be so long, but with so much of the show about, it is hardly surprising that the channel is defined in the public mind by it -regardless of Mr Duncan's noble attempts to tell politicans and opinion-makers that it's all about Dispatches, really.

Until yesterday's loose comments Mr Lygo and his boss did not deserve to lose their jobs, even if Mr Duncan, as chief executive, should wear a jacket over his trademark T-shirt when he needs to sound humble on television. That should continue to apply unless Ofcom or Channel 4's internal inquiry turns up evidence that either man had somehow allowed the programme's producers to create racial conflict -in other words, a conclusion to mirror Lord Hutton's line about the BBC's editorial processes being defective.

Worrying about "what can we do" to get the ratings going, though, could be taken to imply that ratings at Channel 4's flagship show must be boosted by any means necessary. That may not be the case, but suggesting that it might be only feeds public cynicism.

The British may be coming to Hollywood -again -but for all the success of home-grown talent, this should not be misinterpreted as success for the British film industry. Once the excitement of the awards ceremony is over, the country will be no closer to creating long-term sustainable production companies (with the honourable exception of Working Title, which thrives under the vast, meaningless umbrella of General Electric, also the maker of jet engines and credit cards).

The Queen emerged out of the bowels of ITV, but the idea that the commercial broadcaster -probably the only home big enough for a British-owned film business -is going to take the risks of getting into film-making is fanciful. The rest of British production, meanwhile, will stumble along, co-producing movies with the help of lottery money coming via the UK Film Council, while waiting for the next tax break to be offered by the Treasury. It is wrong to say, with films such as Venus and Notes on a Scandal, that British production is in trouble, but the idea that the UK is creating a group of production indies with the growing international clout of their TV rivals -companies such as RDF and Shed, which do not need lottery money to get productions going -is unrealistic. This raises the question of whether making public money and tax breaks available for films is necessary, particularly given that British talent comes up successfully enough through television and seems to find its way to Hollywood (witness Sacha Baron Cohen or Paul Greengrass, the director of Universal Pictures' United 93).

Compare the effort lavished on British film with the negligible public help afforded to British music, an industry that, despite EMI's never-ending woes, is a successful exporter. Of course, some argue that providing copyright extension for drug-addled bands is hardly a good advertisement for the UK, yet the record of many actors is hardly unblemished.

Meanwhile, political attention in film is directed to turning Britain into an inward investment destination, suggesting that the future for creativity -for the Treasury, at least -is to follow down the road of manufacturing. It is depressing how uninterested British capital is in backing entertainment companies (in computer games, say, almost all the development money comes from the US), while buyout firms regard as too risky the prospect of taking on a company as profitable and relatively stable as ITV. So, amid weak domestic investment, in film and elsewhere, the biggest recipients of the film tax breaks will end up being the Hollywood studios that are persuaded to spend a bit of production money in the UK.

Disney and Walden Media, for example, by doing post-production and a smidgen of filming for The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, will get the benefit of Treasury help, providing some work, and better profits, for Hollywood.

It is hard to argue that the Government has anything to do with the solution.

Creative entrepreneurs with a vision -such as Sir Martin Sorrell in advertising - are what really count. But in the present tough climate, with established companies such as Emap selling out of France, international ambition is limited.

It is frustrating to note that where Britain does well, in music and in games, help is not much at hand. In film, where the stars will come through and the rest is a battle, vast energy is expended.

Still, if Dame Helen Mirren wins the Best Actress Oscar, we can forget for a while the fragile commercial basis on which the British entertainment business rests.

dan.sabbagh@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive