So did Channel 4 get away with it? A Trevor Phillips series on multiculturalism, the creation of a right-of-reply programme and the acknowledgement of some mistakes mean that the broadcaster has eluded a fine from Ofcom in the wake of the alleged racist bullying on Celebrity Big Brother this past winter. What will follow will be predictable calls for resignations and, while we are at it, even privatising the channel, but such easy solutions do not reflect the complexity of the issue.

What is true is that Channel 4 was complacent and Endemol, the producer of the reality show, behaved recklessly. When the dispute broke, Channel 4 was slow to clamp down on the bullying of Shilpa Shetty, and its desire to maintain the integrity of the programme in the hope that the housemates would “sort it out” among themselves was too great. The Channel 4 executives Andy Duncan and Luke Johnson, who were involved in the decision-making as the dispute unfolded, clearly struggled to grasp the intensity of public feeling, as interviews at the time showed. Housemates should have been rebuked more overtly in the diary room, and that material should have been publicised quickly.

Ofcom also demonstrated that Endemol quietly suppressed the transmission of more overtly racist exchanges, in which the term “paki” was clearly being referred to by one group of housemates, although it was not uttered. This is more serious still – not because Endemol refused to air the material, which is clearly right – but because, apparently, this was not fed upwards to Channel 4.

As the scandal about television phone-ins has also shown recently, producers and broadcasters are clearly not fully in control of the material that they transmit on screen. This simply has to change, and if somebody deliberately suppressed the information about the alleged racist exchange, that person should resign.

Yet, it is also worth remembering that it was impossible to predict that the Shilpa Shetty dispute could have got so intense so quickly. The emotion at the time was real, but the idea that Jade Goody could have kicked off a minor diplomatic incident, questions in Parliament and a sense of national crisis is not something anybody sane could have planned for. Nor, despite the offence many felt, is there a legal requirement to broadcast television that people should be happy with. To assume that race is not an issue in Britain in 2007 is incredibly naive.

On balance, Channel 4’s actions and Ofcom’s clear rebuke are roughly proportionate. That said, it should not be forgotten that if the regulator had wanted to levy a fine, appeals from Channel 4 could have dragged the whole process on for several more months, while a new series of Big Brother went on air. But in this case, a hefty fine would be damaging for a broadcaster whose contribution to racial diversity (bring back My Beautiful Laundrette) should mitigate errors of judgment made in the heat of the moment.

The real winners, though, are the British public. Those who complained have shown, by interacting with the programme in their own way, that racism, or brushes with racism, will not be tolerated on British screens, which is why we will see rather more of Shilpa Shetty than Jade Goody in the future.

Gordon Brown, of course, instructed his wife to vote for Shilpa, but now, perhaps, it falls to the forthcoming prime minister to contemplate the ultimate punishment – a sale of Channel 4.

It is hardly surprising that there is a bit of interest in Her Majesty’s Treasury at the curious state of Channel 4, given the impending change of government. It is, after all, a profitable state-owned broadcaster in an industry with a massive-enough public intervention called the BBC. After all, is state ownership necessary to preserve Big Brother for the nation, even if the news is one hour long?

Where it starts getting tricky is to consider what happens if you do try to flog it. For a start, on last year’s £21.3 million of profit before tax, Channel 4 is not worth very much – maybe only £340 million, if valued on the same multiple as ITV. Profits, though, are depressed by digital investment. A new owner might also note that there is no law that states that C4 has to spend £500 million a year on programmes. Thus, it does not seem impossible to see profits of maybe £50 million. So it might be worth £800 million, although, if that is achieved at the price of cutting a lot of spending on programming, that is hardly attractive.

Who might buy it, a private equity firm getting rich on the usual outrageous fees or the broadcasters next door? RTL, the owner of Five, would love to increase its position in the UK. Sky is hardly likely to sit back, and should ITV be excluded immediately? After all, the BBC has long had BBC One and BBC Two, and ITV can argue, in revenue terms, that it is merely third after the BBC and Sky. An auction could lift the proceeds to £1 billion, but a Competition Commission inquiry would need to get under way before the sale process began. There is also a broader social question, which is, essentially, what sort of Channel 4 does Mr Brown want? After a quarter-century, the broadcaster has built up a formidable culture, a mixture of virtue and trash that probably represents a decent compromise on what can be achieved in the postmodern era. But that could be preserved through a different type of sale: turning Channel 4 into a trust and gearing it up, although that does add a bit more business risk. Or, specific regulations could attempt to ensure that new owners of Channel 4 have limited choice in how they run the entity. But a simple sale requires a bit more thought than simply picking up the gavel. There is more at stake than just maximising value on a state asset.

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