5 ms·

The BBC is not a government news source. It's not even funded by the UK government.[0] It is - by law[1] - required to be completely editorially independent. T

by M2Ys4U 6y ago

The BBC is not a government news source. It's not even funded by the UK government.[0] It is - by law[1] - required to be completely editorially independent. The BBC is primarily funded by the TV Licence. The licence is levvied on anyone who watches live TV (any live TV) or uses BBC's SVoD service, BBC iPlayer. The BBC does operate a commercial subsidiary (BBC Studios), and the main BBC does have other revenue sources like patents owned by BBC R&D and, as you have noted, advertising on bbc.com for people who are outside of the UK. [0] Well... there are some grants given to the BBC to fund its activities internationally, but those are quite limited in scope and size. [1] https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/charter https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/charter

londons_explore 6y ago
> required to be completely editorially independent. Although historically it seems very rare that the BBC view on any international politics differs from that of the UK government. Hopefully that's because both cater to the views of the British public, but it also seems possible that there is some kind of informal backchannel going on...
- hardlianotion 6y ago
  > Although historically it seems very rare that the BBC view on any international politics differs from that of the UK government. I know a lot of Britishers that would dispute this version of affairs. To my mind the typical BBC point of view is mildly left-of-centre, well-to-do and urban.
  - marshmallow_12 6y ago
    >To my mind the typical BBC point of view is mildly left-of-centre, well-to-do and urban. sounds accurate.
  - statstutor 6y ago
    > the typical BBC point of view is mildly left-of-centre Many people would claim that the BBC is left-of-centre, but if you look at their most prominent/best paid journalists, that is near-objectively not the case. Andrew Neil was been one of the highest paid BBC journalists 2003-2020, having previously worked for Rupert Murdoch, and has gone on to be Chair [correction: Chairman] of "GB News". GB News hosts the most right-wing voices in British political discourse, and been compared to Fox News in this respect. I might concede that the BBC is left-of-centre compared to the average British news media, but given that British news media is exclusively owned by conservative billionaires, I'm not convinced this is a great anchor point.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      On the flip side you could argue that Andrew Neil leaving the BBC shows evidence of it not being right wing. Fundamentally the BBC is definitely left wing[0], with enourmous right wing bias[1] Everyone agrees [2] it's biased. [0] https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/130814102945-BBCBiasOliverLathamfc.pdf https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/130814102945-B... [1] https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-left-right-wing-bias-154917 https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-left-right-wing-b... [2] https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-left-right-wing-bias-154917 https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-left-right-wing-b...
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
The TV license is a tax imposed by the government, ergo the BBC is funded by the UK government.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  >The TV license is a tax imposed by the government The requirement to hold a licence is a statutory one. Likewise, payment of the fee must, by law, be made to the BBC, and enforcement of the licensing regime must be done by (or on behalf of) the BBC. Thus, it is Parliament, not the government, that imposes the tax. (Yes, I know that all taxes must have a statutory basis, but this is one that is levied outside of the usual budgetary process using Finance Acts (the passage of which are traditionally considered confidence votes), and the TV Licence is not considered by government as part of its annual budget).
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Wait, hold up, the Parliament is not the government? That's a very confusing take.
    - M2Ys4U 6y ago
      What's confusing about it? The government wields executive power, Parliament legislates and holds the government to account.
      - iso1631 6y ago
        The confusing part is that the government has to maintain the confidence of the house, and is comprised of members of parliament. Normally the government whips mean that parliament does whatever the government tell it to do, so "holds the government to account" is a laughable statement. Unlike the US system where the president can easily not have the confidence of the Senate or House (R president, D House, D Senate for example), and appoints his own secretaries from a pool of 300+m people, in the UK, the prime minister appoints ministers from parliament (usually the house of commons but can appoint from house of lords). Technically the PM could make a new lord (like Blair did with Sugar), but it's convoluted, and conventionally the main jobs must go to MPs Most people think "I like Boris, I vote for him as PM, he runs the country". In the last 5 years this has broken down and parliament has asserted itself more -- this independence was punished at the ballot box in December 2019.
seneca 6y ago
> It's not even funded by the UK government.[0] > The BBC is primarily funded by the TV Licence. The licence is levvied on anyone who watches live TV (any live TV) Who mandates the payment of a TV License and allocates the funds from it to the BBC? I would assume that's the UK government. These terms may be used differently in the UK, but in the US that would be considered government funded.
- iso1631 6y ago
  The license is mandated (in certain circumstances), however the funds are collected by the BBC directly. The US mandates obamacare I believe, does that mean it's government funded?
  - seneca 6y ago
    > The license is mandated (in certain circumstances), however the funds are collected by the BBC directly. Interesting. I would still consider that government funded, personally, since it's a mandatory fee imposed by the government and applied to all TV watchers, not just consumers of the BBc. It's certainly a bit more blurry though with the direct collection. > The US mandates obamacare I believe, does that mean it's government funded? It depends what you mean. "Obamacare" is an extremely broad term. Speaking generally: If the government is mandating a fee for some activity, and allocating the funds from said fee to some entity, that entity is government funded. Those fees are defacto taxes.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      > Interesting. I would still consider that government funded, personally, since it's a mandatory fee imposed by the government and applied to all TV watchers, not just consumers of the BBc. It's certainly a bit more blurry though with the direct collection. Not all consumers. No need for a TV license to listen to radio 4, or use the website. I do have a TV license, but that's mainly because I very occasionally use iplayer - I don't even own a TV aerial. Some states in America require a dog license and/or a cat license, is that a tax? Is a fishing license a tax? How about a fee to enter a national park? In at least some states in the US the government mandates you to have car insurance if the car is operated on the public highway. This mandatory fee is collected by private companies and goes to private companies, is it a tax?
arghwhat 6y ago
Same in Denmark, but the collective opinion is that the structure makes the license a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of owning a type of device irrespective of use) that goes to the media company, thus making it state funded by that tax, regardless of what the company and government claim. If it was independent it would have to sell its services on its own, with citizens purchasing the service only if they wished to use it. In Denmark we're also soon abolishing the license and just making it a normal tax. The structure was pointless and the attempted indirection only angered people, especially as it was expanded to also apply to anyone having internet access over a certain bandwidth. Furthermore, anything funded by law cannot be truly independent in content either, as it will wish to appease the hand that feeds it.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  > Same in Denmark, but the collective opinion is that the structure makes the license a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of owning a type of device irrespective of use) that goes to the media company, thus making it state funded by that tax, regardless of what the company and government claim. >If it was independent it would have to sell its services on its own, with citizens purchasing the service only if they wished to use it. It's similar here. the Office of National Statistics has considered the licence fee a tax rather than a service charge for ~15 years. But I don't think that changes the nature of how the BBC is funded. >In Denmark we're also soon abolishing the license and just making it a normal tax. The structure was pointless and the attempted indirection only angered people, especially as it was expanded to also apply to anyone having internet access over a certain bandwidth. There has been a live discussion around the continuation of the licence fee here, too. Although that seems to have - mostly - gone away since the BBC proved its value during the pandemic. I think it helps that the requirement is still fairly narrow here. The indirection is a feature - having the BBC's funding taken out of the regular budgetary process adds to its independence. Politically it's a distinct action to change the value of the licence fee. >Furthermore, anything funded by law cannot be truly independent in content either, as it will wish to appease the hand that feeds it. To be fair that applies to more than funding. As an example, if trade unions piss the government off too much they can get a majority in the legislature to rewrite industrial relations law.
switch007 6y ago
This is cherry picking information about the BBC. The chairman has worked for the PM and the Chancellor and has donated large sums to the Conservative party. The BBC Director General is an ex Conservative Party councillor. The BBC board Chairman and the non-executives are effectively appointed by the government.

by M2Ys4U 6y ago

londons_explore 6y ago

> required to be completely editorially independent. Although historically it seems very rare that the BBC view on any international politics differs from that of the UK government. Hopefully that's because both cater to the views of the British public, but it also seems possible that there is some kind of informal backchannel going on...

hardlianotion 6y ago
> Although historically it seems very rare that the BBC view on any international politics differs from that of the UK government. I know a lot of Britishers that would dispute this version of affairs. To my mind the typical BBC point of view is mildly left-of-centre, well-to-do and urban.
- marshmallow_12 6y ago
  >To my mind the typical BBC point of view is mildly left-of-centre, well-to-do and urban. sounds accurate.
- statstutor 6y ago
  > the typical BBC point of view is mildly left-of-centre Many people would claim that the BBC is left-of-centre, but if you look at their most prominent/best paid journalists, that is near-objectively not the case. Andrew Neil was been one of the highest paid BBC journalists 2003-2020, having previously worked for Rupert Murdoch, and has gone on to be Chair [correction: Chairman] of "GB News". GB News hosts the most right-wing voices in British political discourse, and been compared to Fox News in this respect. I might concede that the BBC is left-of-centre compared to the average British news media, but given that British news media is exclusively owned by conservative billionaires, I'm not convinced this is a great anchor point.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    On the flip side you could argue that Andrew Neil leaving the BBC shows evidence of it not being right wing. Fundamentally the BBC is definitely left wing[0], with enourmous right wing bias[1] Everyone agrees [2] it's biased. [0] https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/130814102945-BBCBiasOliverLathamfc.pdf https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/130814102945-B... [1] https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-left-right-wing-bias-154917 https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-left-right-wing-b... [2] https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-left-right-wing-bias-154917 https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/bbc-left-right-wing-b...

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

The TV license is a tax imposed by the government, ergo the BBC is funded by the UK government.

M2Ys4U 6y ago
>The TV license is a tax imposed by the government The requirement to hold a licence is a statutory one. Likewise, payment of the fee must, by law, be made to the BBC, and enforcement of the licensing regime must be done by (or on behalf of) the BBC. Thus, it is Parliament, not the government, that imposes the tax. (Yes, I know that all taxes must have a statutory basis, but this is one that is levied outside of the usual budgetary process using Finance Acts (the passage of which are traditionally considered confidence votes), and the TV Licence is not considered by government as part of its annual budget).
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Wait, hold up, the Parliament is not the government? That's a very confusing take.
  - M2Ys4U 6y ago
    What's confusing about it? The government wields executive power, Parliament legislates and holds the government to account.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      The confusing part is that the government has to maintain the confidence of the house, and is comprised of members of parliament. Normally the government whips mean that parliament does whatever the government tell it to do, so "holds the government to account" is a laughable statement. Unlike the US system where the president can easily not have the confidence of the Senate or House (R president, D House, D Senate for example), and appoints his own secretaries from a pool of 300+m people, in the UK, the prime minister appoints ministers from parliament (usually the house of commons but can appoint from house of lords). Technically the PM could make a new lord (like Blair did with Sugar), but it's convoluted, and conventionally the main jobs must go to MPs Most people think "I like Boris, I vote for him as PM, he runs the country". In the last 5 years this has broken down and parliament has asserted itself more -- this independence was punished at the ballot box in December 2019.

seneca 6y ago

> It's not even funded by the UK government.[0] > The BBC is primarily funded by the TV Licence. The licence is levvied on anyone who watches live TV (any live TV) Who mandates the payment of a TV License and allocates the funds from it to the BBC? I would assume that's the UK government. These terms may be used differently in the UK, but in the US that would be considered government funded.

iso1631 6y ago
The license is mandated (in certain circumstances), however the funds are collected by the BBC directly. The US mandates obamacare I believe, does that mean it's government funded?
- seneca 6y ago
  > The license is mandated (in certain circumstances), however the funds are collected by the BBC directly. Interesting. I would still consider that government funded, personally, since it's a mandatory fee imposed by the government and applied to all TV watchers, not just consumers of the BBc. It's certainly a bit more blurry though with the direct collection. > The US mandates obamacare I believe, does that mean it's government funded? It depends what you mean. "Obamacare" is an extremely broad term. Speaking generally: If the government is mandating a fee for some activity, and allocating the funds from said fee to some entity, that entity is government funded. Those fees are defacto taxes.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    > Interesting. I would still consider that government funded, personally, since it's a mandatory fee imposed by the government and applied to all TV watchers, not just consumers of the BBc. It's certainly a bit more blurry though with the direct collection. Not all consumers. No need for a TV license to listen to radio 4, or use the website. I do have a TV license, but that's mainly because I very occasionally use iplayer - I don't even own a TV aerial. Some states in America require a dog license and/or a cat license, is that a tax? Is a fishing license a tax? How about a fee to enter a national park? In at least some states in the US the government mandates you to have car insurance if the car is operated on the public highway. This mandatory fee is collected by private companies and goes to private companies, is it a tax?

arghwhat 6y ago

Same in Denmark, but the collective opinion is that the structure makes the license a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of owning a type of device irrespective of use) that goes to the media company, thus making it state funded by that tax, regardless of what the company and government claim. If it was independent it would have to sell its services on its own, with citizens purchasing the service only if they wished to use it. In Denmark we're also soon abolishing the license and just making it a normal tax. The structure was pointless and the attempted indirection only angered people, especially as it was expanded to also apply to anyone having internet access over a certain bandwidth. Furthermore, anything funded by law cannot be truly independent in content either, as it will wish to appease the hand that feeds it.

M2Ys4U 6y ago
> Same in Denmark, but the collective opinion is that the structure makes the license a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of owning a type of device irrespective of use) that goes to the media company, thus making it state funded by that tax, regardless of what the company and government claim. >If it was independent it would have to sell its services on its own, with citizens purchasing the service only if they wished to use it. It's similar here. the Office of National Statistics has considered the licence fee a tax rather than a service charge for ~15 years. But I don't think that changes the nature of how the BBC is funded. >In Denmark we're also soon abolishing the license and just making it a normal tax. The structure was pointless and the attempted indirection only angered people, especially as it was expanded to also apply to anyone having internet access over a certain bandwidth. There has been a live discussion around the continuation of the licence fee here, too. Although that seems to have - mostly - gone away since the BBC proved its value during the pandemic. I think it helps that the requirement is still fairly narrow here. The indirection is a feature - having the BBC's funding taken out of the regular budgetary process adds to its independence. Politically it's a distinct action to change the value of the licence fee. >Furthermore, anything funded by law cannot be truly independent in content either, as it will wish to appease the hand that feeds it. To be fair that applies to more than funding. As an example, if trade unions piss the government off too much they can get a majority in the legislature to rewrite industrial relations law.

switch007 6y ago

This is cherry picking information about the BBC. The chairman has worked for the PM and the Chancellor and has donated large sums to the Conservative party. The BBC Director General is an ex Conservative Party councillor. The BBC board Chairman and the non-executives are effectively appointed by the government.