"BBC licence fee to be abolished in 2027 and funding frozen"

[Frustration]

I once had to ask a friend, who was more knowledgeable about the UK, about the context of the Doctor Who episode "The Idiot's Lantern", because I was completely confused by the subtext.

Apparently the particular way in which television was introduced to various nations has a lot to do with how it altered their culture and associations they developed with it. It could be argued that the US is where TV was invented (it's a remarkably complex and uncertain topic), but in the UK it was introduced as a government-sponsored project and had a homogenizing effect. The UK used to have a very rich set of dialects - the bit in Pygmalion or "My Fair Lady" about how a linguist could identify what neighborhood a Londoner came from by how they pronounced their vowels was actually true. But the use of Received Pronunciation on television, and the increased mobility of the population after WWII, smoothed out a lot of that complexity. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on what consequences you look at and who you ask.

TV was *always* a commercial product in the US, and we also historically wanted less governmental intervention in things than Europe did.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

On a certain level, I don't see it much different than taxing gasoline commercialism to upkeep the roads.

Apparently you can just opt to "not watch tv." And not have to worry about it.

Between government and general non-profit, I'd think a centralized organization is better equipped to handle more non-partisan and impartial information, though any non-profit can hold itself up to impartial standards through its own charter and transparency methods.

[clearspira]

On a certain level, I don't see it much different than taxing gasoline commercialism to upkeep the roads.

Apparently you can just opt to "not watch tv." And not have to worry about it.

Between government and general non-profit, I'd think a centralized organization is better equipped to handle more non-partisan and impartial information, though any non-profit can hold itself up to impartial standards through its own charter and transparency methods.

Why do you that the right-wing Tories are after it whilst the left-wing is praising it?
Yeah.
Its because its about as non-partisan and impartial as I am.

[Frustration]

An entity so directly tied to government cannot possibly be non-partisan and even-handed. Any organization will tend to manifest the prejudices and fundamental worldview of the people who operate it, but private entities will tend to serve the interests of whoever pays.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. When the BBC's funding comes through the government, it's the people who possess influence in the government who determine - one way or another - what the BBC says.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

On a certain level, I don't see it much different than taxing gasoline commercialism to upkeep the roads.

Apparently you can just opt to "not watch tv." And not have to worry about it.

Between government and general non-profit, I'd think a centralized organization is better equipped to handle more non-partisan and impartial information, though any non-profit can hold itself up to impartial standards through its own charter and transparency methods.

Why do you that the right-wing Tories are after it whilst the left-wing is praising it?
Yeah.
Its because its about as non-partisan and impartial as I am.

Perhaps. Though I wouldn't compare it to the likes of CNN whom will be rather willful to embrace narrative slants, even assumedly. BBC to me has seemed like an outlet that tries to be well versed on various social dimensions to put forth an objectively well informed/measured report.

And I feel like a lot of stuff from the US will be watered down reports to fit narratives or be rather trite on relevant facts.

[Riedquat]

An entity so directly tied to government cannot possibly be non-partisan and even-handed. Any organization will tend to manifest the prejudices and fundamental worldview of the people who operate it, but private entities will tend to serve the interests of whoever pays.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. When the BBC's funding comes through the government, it's the people who possess influence in the government who determine - one way or another - what the BBC says.

It's not directly tied to the government, and is set up so that the government has a rather limited ability to control what it does. Obviously they've got some control since that's the ultimate source of most of its funding, but for all its faults I do think the BBC is closer to being independent of any external influence as any media organisation can be. Certainly more so than commercial sources.

[Frustration]

It's not directly tied to the government

Ha ha HA ha ha ha!

and is set up so that the government has a rather limited ability to control what it does.

Yeah, there are obviously no political considerations when deciding who will be in charge, or who will be employed by the organization. People clearly won't be put in charge who agree with the worldview of the folks in government supporting them, and people who have acted in ways inconvenient for the political establishment won't at all face retribution or discrimintion in employment.

but for all its faults I do think the BBC is closer to being independent of any external influence as any media organisation can be. Certainly more so than commercial sources.

It tries to present itself as independent, free of influence, and unbiased. It's almost as though its extensive media presence gives it immense power to shape and suggest what the populace believes...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

BBC as an information network seems to operate like PG&E does in California for gas lines and electricity throughout the state infrastructure. A critical difference being that BBC is one airwave/production effort, while California's natural monopoly of utilities is all encompassing.

Not without controversy, nevertheless.

[Frustration]

If we start talking about California's various forms of corruption we'll never get back to the original topic.

[TGLS]

There's "corruption exists in the government" and "the concept of non-partisan arms length agencies are a sham and wholly controlled by the whoever happens to control the legislature"