The BBC is there to “inform, educate and entertain”. It gets government(/licence fee) funding because only the last of these is likely to be profitable.
The BBC is far from perfect, but its documentaries are great and it remains the most trusted source of news in the UK - give the news division a requirement to be profitable and the sensationalism that follows would destroy that trust pretty quickly. The last thing we need is a news landscape even more similar to the US.
> and it remains the most trusted source of news in the UK - give the news division a requirement to be profitable and the sensationalism that follows would destroy that trust pretty quickly.
It's kinda interesting that the journalist supposed to criticize the government are... on the government's payroll. There's a massive conflict of interests right there.
> The last thing we need is a news landscape even more similar to the US.
You mean several different organizations with different viewpoints and financial support from backers with known agendas?
You mean like how opposition politicians are on the governments’ payroll and their job is almost entirely to criticise the government?
The government pays for lots of people who are not always friendly to them. Including judges, anti corruption bodies etc.
I’m in Australia so I don’t know as many specifics about the BBC but our ABC which is modeled on the BBC in many ways (except it’s not a license fee but actual government funding that pays for it) has a charter which says ’as a publicly-funded broadcaster, the ABC is expected not to take editorial stances on political issues, and is required under its charter enshrined in legislation to present a range of views with impartiality.’
Given the number of complaints by government and oppositions at various times it does this job pretty well
> You mean like how opposition politicians are on the governments’ payroll and their job is almost entirely to criticise the government? The government pays for lots of people who are not always friendly to them. Including judges, anti corruption bodies etc.
These functions are pretty much guaranteed by the constitution. They ARE the government, not some state funded parallels organization with no way of fighting back. A simple majority could severely defund the BBC and pretty much nothing could be done. Makes for a good incentive to be nice to the government.
> as a publicly-funded broadcaster, the ABC is expected not to take editorial stances on political issues, and is required under its charter enshrined in legislation to present a range of views with impartiality.
For how long? Soon they might stop granting exit rights to dissidents! Australia is on a slippery slope and it seems it's only accelerating [0]
Again, over the long history of both the ABC and BBC there has been a strong record of investigative journalism that has been critical of the government at times. The independence for these purposes has been enshrined in law and withstood some pretty strong challenges from governments that were on the wrong side of their reporting at times. The organisations survived. The governments did not in all instances.
Re: your hyperbole on Australia turning to authoritarianism, don't believe the hype. I could just as easily say soon the United States might begin locking up immigrant children or knocking down doors hunting for illegals. Or maybe offer bounties on people having abortions. Oh wait, they already are?
It's not managed by the government, it's a Royal Charter.
In the UK, parliament is sovereign and can ultimately do anything so they could vote to change this arrangement. This is the case with anything. Parliament could vote to execute left handers.
The fact remains, what you said is false;
1. The BBC are not on the government's payroll
2. They regularly hold the government to account
Your criticism is nonsense Libertarian speculation that is refuted by the real world.
> In the UK, parliament is sovereign and can ultimately do anything so they could vote to change this arrangement.
So tomorrow morning they could threaten the BBC with a massive funding cut unless they don't publish things they don't like... and there's nothing stopping them from doing so.
Parliament != government. In theory it could pass a law to get rid of the royal charter. Tomorrow morning Congress could threaten ABC with confiscating its license unless they don't publish things they don't like. The German army could storm broadcasters with armed men and for them to broadcast what they say.
The BBC is far from perfect, but its documentaries are great and it remains the most trusted source of news in the UK - give the news division a requirement to be profitable and the sensationalism that follows would destroy that trust pretty quickly. The last thing we need is a news landscape even more similar to the US.