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

[Frustration]

Perhaps I don't have enough direct experience with the BBC and its products to be considered to have a truly informed opinion. But neither PBS nor NPR are genuinely non-partisan and non-ideological in the US. They're theoretically independent corporations which nevertheless receive government funding, funding which has occasionally become a political football. And they're far less tied to government than the BBC is.

[Riedquat]

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...

You appear to be taking an extremely black and white view of things there - its funding comes from the government, therefore it's pretty much the government's spokesman. Sneer all you like but the way it is set up IS designed to give it a level of independence. Is it perfect? Of course not, but I never claimed it was. But I'm curious to know what you think a more independent from the opinions of its source of funding organisation is.

[Frustration]

Its funding comes from the government, there are obvious political considerations in naming who's going to be in charge, and its entire authority structure is selected in a way that ensures people of the 'wrong' attitudes and worldview are unlikely to be employed and those who do likely internalize its standards.

Isn't this the forum where someone has the Heinlein quote about a managed democracy being a great thing for the managers, and a responsible press being great for a government which can decide what 'responsible' means?

Then there are the speech codes, the D-notices... (example)

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Its funding comes from the government, there are obvious political considerations in naming who's going to be in charge, and its entire authority structure is selected in a way that ensures people of the 'wrong' attitudes and worldview are unlikely to be employed and those who do likely internalize its standards.

That being said, this seems to be verging more on anti centralization rhetoric than on facts involving the shortcomings of non-profit business models, particularly pertaining to something as socially essential as news media.

[Frustration]

I don't agree that it's socially essential at all, in the sense that the government must supply it. People generate methods of passing on news, as long as the means to do so are available. Which is why government suppression of dissent so often starts with them shutting down the networks used by phones nowadays. They saw what happened in the "Arab Spring" and learned from it.

[Riedquat]

Its funding comes from the government, there are obvious political considerations in naming who's going to be in charge, and its entire authority structure is selected in a way that ensures people of the 'wrong' attitudes and worldview are unlikely to be employed and those who do likely internalize its standards.

Isn't this the forum where someone has the Heinlein quote about a managed democracy being a great thing for the managers, and a responsible press being great for a government which can decide what 'responsible' means?

Then there are the speech codes, the D-notices... (example)

That just brings us back to "it's not perfect" though. And the BBC certainly does have its issues. There's obviously going to be some level of influence from wherever the funding comes from, but compared to any other organisation is it the same, better, or worse? The government can put pressure via changes to the licence fee but has no ability to have a direct say, unlike a privately owned organisation where the owners are pretty much free to have full control over everything it does, at least within the limits of the law.

[ProfessorDetective]

Its funding comes from the government, there are obvious political considerations in naming who's going to be in charge, and its entire authority structure is selected in a way that ensures people of the 'wrong' attitudes and worldview are unlikely to be employed and those who do likely internalize its standards.

Isn't this the forum where someone has the Heinlein quote about a managed democracy being a great thing for the managers, and a responsible press being great for a government which can decide what 'responsible' means?

Then there are the speech codes, the D-notices... (example)

That just brings us back to "it's not perfect" though. And the BBC certainly does have its issues. There's obviously going to be some level of influence from wherever the funding comes from, but compared to any other organisation is it the same, better, or worse? The government can put pressure via changes to the licence fee but has no ability to have a direct say, unlike a privately owned organisation where the owners are pretty much free to have full control over everything it does, at least within the limits of the law.

Yeah, the worst they can really do is just shut it down, outright... Huh...

And, for the record, I'm pro-public-broadcasting. Being raised on WEPT Knoxville will do that. Having minimally commercialized television/radio you can get just about anywhere for free is something I considered, at least, desirable, if not essential (especially if you've got kids).

Yeah, they're left-biased, if you consider factual, educational, often multicultural, programming inherently liberal. Some folks do, often the same who consider liberalism to be an inherently negitive trait.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well it's reasonable to ask if news media is subject to any market failures. I tend to think it is, though that is a normative assessment.

[Riedquat]

Yeah, the worst they can really do is just shut it down, outright... Huh...

Not so easily, trying to do so would become a major political issue, just like playing around with the funding of any public service is.

[Thebestoftherest]

I have to asked, does that mean the BBC is going to be no more? Again dumb AMerican here.