Sooo, now what?

well, we have a constitution but no one pays any attention to that anymore, not really. so a paper gauranteeing independency is not something i'd rely upon. pb's arguments here seem more pursuasive and sensible to me.

but i'll still go the bbc for news. more variety.

 

I think it's a little of both, it is an autonomous corporation (not state owned) whose governors are appointed by the incumbent government. While the governors are appointed governmentally, you'd have to go some distance to make the case that the Beeb is "state-controlled"; its editorial independence, often a thorn in the side of sitting governments, speaks for itself. In the 20s and 50s there were Parliamentary noises campaigning for the government to take over the BBC, and the Thatcher era brought it close to privatisation. So, it's neither state run nor privately run, it's a publically run corporation.

State-controlled media have obvious problems with bias, and the free-market privately owned media outlets almost always prove to be partisan too. Perhaps the BBC's unique situation is why it's arguably the best and most balanced news organisation in the world.

 

Good one......but you're right, it is pointless for you to argue with pointbreak, becasue you always loose to him.

It's pretty clear the BBC is state owned, considering the simple fact the queen appoints the governors with reccomendations from the government.

 

The governors, themselves independent and autonomous, are governmentally appointed, but I don't think the BBC is technically "state owned". It started as a private company in the 1920s funded by a consortium of technology companies (it was the "British Broadcasting Company" until about 1927). Its royal charter of incorporation turned the British Broadcasting Company into an autonomous corporation. Technically, this was not "nationalisation" in the sense of a government takeover of a private company. So who does actually own the BBC? According to Viscount Astor, "No one owns it".

 

Nobody likes a sore loser.

How is it up there? Yeah, roses really smell like poo-poo poo!

Incessant, well except in this thread. But still!

The BBC saying they are independent is not "documented verification". I've got two legs two stand on and I'm doing a victory dance with them right now SUCKA!

==============================

Having said all that, my point is not that the BBC is bad or that they do not try to be as independent as possible. I watch the BBC. My point is that just because state media is not profit driven doesn't make it independent or unbiased.

Now my next question:

PRIVATISE IT!

Why not?

 

Comprehension failure once again I see PB. The BBC Charter underscoring BBC editorial and financial independence IS documented evidence.

Just keep dancing, no sense letting your legs atrophy along with your thought processes.

 

So what. Fox news has documented evidence that they are "fair and balanced".

So since the BBC says they are independent it doesn't matter that their governors are appointed by the government and that they are financed by a government imposed tax?

This argument was stupid that last three times you said it and repetition isn't making it any smarter.

PRIVATISE IT!

 

Once again you reaffirm not only your refusal to pay attention but your absolute inability to get your facts straight.

The BBC is not financed by any "TAX", nor is that financing dispensed to the BBC "by the government". The BBC's financing is a wholly separate public fee coordinated by the BBC and collected by the post office. It comes naught from any minister's desk, nor from the Treasury and neither does the treasury have any say over how those revenues are used.

And of course you once again flatly deny the documented import of the BBC charter which IS the legal basis upon which the BBC operates and which demonstrably reaffirms the BBC's autonomy from government control.

So do tell us all PB, if the BBC is such an instrument of government controlled media, why then has the Blair government been at odds with it for the past several years over one policy after another?

Why did Thatcher seek to have it dismantled for holding her government to account?

Truly the BBC must be the only "government controlled" network to regularly find itself contending with those who supposedly control it.

Just keep living in denial dear boy, you are a fine example of the achievement of the tabloid press to cloud minds and fuel ideological fervor

 

And what exactly is a "public fee"? Could you define it for me? Who decided that the BBC can charge a "public fee" and who decides how much that fee will be?

THE GOVERNMENT.

Sounds a whole lot like a tax to me. I guess they fooled you again LHI.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you tell us why Gavyn Davies and Andrew Gilligan resigned from the BBC?

A charter saying the BBC is independent is no more important than the Cuban constitution, which I excerpt here:

You see? It says right in the constitution that the press is free! Therefore it woudl be impossible for Cuban media to be biased, right? This is your sad logic.

Yada yada yada. I noticed you haven't mentioned the appointment of governors in a few posts, would we be too optimistic in thinking you have finally figured out that they are appointed by the government? Gosh lets hope so.

 

Clearly fail once again to grasp the points made to you and in true form just diverge off into unrelated examples enitrely.

No need to rehash the issue of governors as that has been duly dealt with and unsrurprisingly dismissed in the face of the documented evidence. Face it you simply prefer to bury your head in the sand than admit you are incapable of grasping the difference between institutional association and outright "government control".

Why did Gilligan and Davies resign? (unsurprising evasion of the question put to you, btw) For their failure to confirm their stories and get their facts straight. No less than has happened to journalists in the mainstream media and press who were caught out failing to adhere to proper journalistic standards.

Has the criticism of the Blair government died with a mere two resignations? NO.

The rest of your post is an exercise in comparing apples to oranges and has no bearing on this issue. Hardly surprising you should resort to such commonly recognised tabloid tactics to argue your baseless assertions.

Just another rabid ideologue, and one who will likely never grasp the nature of global politics and the machinations that go on behind the scenes. No juicy soundbites or photo ops to stir your impressionable and easily spun sentiments.

 

This is all pretty childish. It's established that legally the BBC is independent from government, it is an autonomous public corporation with editorial independence, free from direct governmental interference. That's the corporation's chartered legal situation. If you believe the Beeb is nonetheless actually a propaganda arm of the UK government, why don't you try to make the case? I mean actually make the case with examples rather than simply asserting it to be true.

For example, there was a study carried out last year which demonstrated that during the Iraq war, BBC TV news was the most "pro-war" of the main UK television news sources. That is, they aired the least amount of sceptical, dissenting or alternative voices. Brief article about it here. This might well support the case that the BBC is biased towards the status-quo and the government of the day. As might the resignations of Dyke and Davies, who were forced out by the board of (government appointed) governors for allowing Gilligan to get away with his famous 'mistake' in a report which was highly critical of the government.

But if this is the case, why does the serving government of the day almost without fail always accuse the BBC of being biased against it? The Labour government certainly felt the BBC was "anti-war" during the Iraq campaign, but this might not have objectively been the case at all. If the BBC is nothing more than a state-controlled media outlet, why is it lauded around the world for its fairness and balance? And by what mechanism does governmental influence actually take place in terms of editorial policy, given the legal proscription of governmental intereference?

These would be the really interesting questions.

 

The liscence fee is a compulosry aspect to owning a television in the UK- how is it not a tax? Just because the government doesnt collect it doesnt stop it being a form of taxation.

Also when did Thatcher try to dismantle the BBC? Haveing just sat an A-Level media paper on the BBC an its history i can find no evidence of this.

And the idea of privatising the BBC is a crap idea, similar to privatising the NHS, because the BBC has no external influecnces in the form of advertisers or share holders it is capeable of a greater level of independace which allows for better journalism and factual programme making.

 

#1. The BBC is state owned. Regardless of how it is structured to insulate itself from direct government control, regardless of what the charter says about it being independent, in the end it is a state owned broadcaster. Many people would like to believe that the BBC is owned by nobody, or that it somehow owns itself, but that's nonsense.

#1. The BBC is funded by tax money. It is entirely dependent on funds from taxpayers, via a government imposed thinly disguised tax. The government has complete and total control over the funding of the BBC. They cannot determine how the budget is spent but they have absolute control of funding.

#3. BBC governors are appointed by the government, and nobody else.

==============================

Let's go back to my original post.

My point is that certain people believe that since the BBC is a non profit organization, and I quote, it "just reports news with no spin or agendas." Is this true?

The BBC is not truly independent, and being independent does not mean there is no bias. If I won lotto and set up my own newspaper I would be pretty damned independent but I could also be biased beyond Ann Coulter or John Pilger's wildest fantasies.

People are troubled about media bias and want a source they can trust. I think that's impossible. You need to use multiple sources and do your own analysis. If you want unbiased news watch the weather channel. Otherwise, accept the fact that you will never be able to completely trust any form of media - private, public, whatever.

 

PB's contention is that the BBC is "government controlled" and attempts to suggest that its funding is evidence of this control. Now, insofar as the license fee is NOT collected by the government, nor are the collected revenues administered by the government but rather by the BBC itself, the argument that the BBC is directed funded by the government falls flat.

A clear example of the differences in both forms of financing can be shown by examining the NHS. The NHS is directly funded from general taxation and is administered and controlled by the DHHS. The BBC, despite being a public institution and unlike the NHS, retains its own autonomous financing independent of the Treasury.

As for Thatcher's role in the longrunning anti-BBC tirade (which continues to this day as evidenced by our resident Murdoch-supporting ideologue)...

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt200102/jtselect/jtcom/169/169ap10.htm

Further examination of the vested interests backing the defamation (in an attempt to advance their case for privatisation) of the BBC and more generally public broadcasting is set forth in this review on freedom of the press...

http://keywords.dsvr.co.uk/freepress/body.phtml?doctype=&id=150

 

Who collects it is totally irrelevant. The license fee was created by the government to fund the BBC. The government decides what level the license fee will be. That is what matters. There is no meaningful distinction between this and a tax.

Are you saying that if the government collected the license fee and then transferred the money to the BBC rather than the BBC collecting the money itself then suddenly this would change everything?

Ridiculous. The license fee is a tax and the government appoints the governors. Stop wasting our time.

 

LOL. Wasting your time perhaps, but your time is most assuredly a waste of everyone elses.

And for the record, do you now presume to speak for all other posters in Hip Forums? Obviously your presumptive nature knows no bounds.

Perhaps one day youll advance beyond your typical unsupportable opinion and actually learn to come to grips with how things actually function. Not so black and white in the real world, sadly for you.

 

Question

What does any of this have to do with my original post?
()

 

I'd like someone to explain to me exactly who does own public corporations. But it's certainly a misnomer to say they are "state owned" in the sense that British Gas or British Telecom were. Whoever owns it, the BBC is quite distinct from "nationalised" or state run companies. It is funded differently, controlled differently, and has a charter specifically designed to put it at arms length from governmental intervention.

Given this legally enshrined status of independence, if it's your contention that the BBC's position as a public corporation means that it is not independent but is somehow open to governmental manipulation and bias, exactly how would you say this occurs? Would you say it's more, or less biased than the majority of privately owned media?

Stop squabbling and move on!

 

Good point. I have created a new thread under UK titled "Privatise the BBC!"

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12285

 

Well, since you are the one bitching about the U.S. all over the "Universal Healthcare" thread, it seems you are in line to provide a suggestion yourself, most highness of the desired American welfare-state.