3 ms·

Only because the BBC has a special place in the law: > In 1991, the BBC assumed the role of TV Licensing Authority with responsibility for the collection and e

by msla 9y ago

Only because the BBC has a special place in the law: > In 1991, the BBC assumed the role of TV Licensing Authority with responsibility for the collection and enforcement of the licence fee.[5] The BBC is authorised by the Communications Act 2003 to collect and enforce the TV licence fee. Section 363 of the Act makes it against the law to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being broadcast without a TV Licence. Section 365 of the same Act requires the payment of the TV Licence fee to the BBC. That hardly makes the case the BBC is Fully Independent from the British Government, which is what is being discussed here.

am1988 9y ago
Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be. Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. This is why I like the idea of a (properly funded) public news source, just not as the only source of news.
- msla 9y ago
  > Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be. Obviously false. > Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. Or have them run as a non-profit which doesn't accept advertising and instead takes donations from a huge variety of sources, including the people who watch it. Don't pretend there are no other funding models. Don't pretend the fact the government has a strong hand in their funding doesn't impact what they consider to be newsworthy.
  - am1988 9y ago
    > Obviously false. Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny. That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. > Don't pretend there are no other funding models. I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.
    - msla 9y ago
      > That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. ... assuming you want the news to be government-funded and, therefore, government-run. Some of us see a problem in that.

by msla 9y ago

am1988 9y ago

Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be. Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. This is why I like the idea of a (properly funded) public news source, just not as the only source of news.

msla 9y ago
> Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be. Obviously false. > Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. Or have them run as a non-profit which doesn't accept advertising and instead takes donations from a huge variety of sources, including the people who watch it. Don't pretend there are no other funding models. Don't pretend the fact the government has a strong hand in their funding doesn't impact what they consider to be newsworthy.
- am1988 9y ago
  > Obviously false. Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny. That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. > Don't pretend there are no other funding models. I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.
  - msla 9y ago
    > That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect. ... assuming you want the news to be government-funded and, therefore, government-run. Some of us see a problem in that.