4 ms·

I think you seriously misunderstand the relationship between the government and the BBC. The whole thing is setup to create a clear firewall between the BBC an

I think you seriously misunderstand the relationship between the government and the BBC. The whole thing is setup to create a clear firewall between the BBC and government to preserve the BBC’s impartiality and prevent it becoming a mouthpiece for whoever’s in power (it’s a separate debate as to how successful that is). Ministers are not the CEO of the BBC. Not even close. The BBC has an entirely separate board that should have no relationship to the current government in power (something that BoJo is desperately trying to erode). The whole point of all this is to explicitly make sure the BBC isn't a government controlled corporation, regardless of how much the government wishes it was. > It's also worth noting the UK govt' spent $5.1bn on the BBC last year, in contrast Sky operated on $5.2bn in revenue. There are clearly some huge inefficiencies at the BBC that can be remedied internally without government approval. Bemoaning $5.1bn as not being enough is garbage. I mean, ITV operates on $2.1bn in revenue. Cutting back the waste seems appropriate to me. You clearly have no idea how huge the BBC’s legally mandated remit is. Comparing the BBC to Sky is like comparing TfL to Uber. Sure they’re both transport companies, but TfL is legally mandated to provide a good transport service to all, regardless of background or income, and treat their employees well. Uber can fuck their drivers, and refuse to provide services to the unprofitable.

FabHK 5y ago
Indeed, the BBC cannot give in to government pressure. It sets great store by factual accuracy. And if the defense of the realm is at stake, it has to be very responsible. See the wonderful documentary^W comedy Yes, Minister. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog
monkeynotes 5y ago
You can have a parent company specifying budget, policy, and mandates whilst being entirely hands off on the day-to-day. > The BBC has an entirely separate board that should have no relationship to the current government in power The director/board all report to the Queen, who defers to the government who enact mandates for the BBC. The government appoints senior members. I just don't see how you can say the BBC is autonomous in terms of what its board decides. > From Wikipedia: The chair and four non-executive members representing the four nations are appointed by the Queen-in-Council, on the advice of the UK Secretary of State. Five other non-executive members are appointed by the board and the four executive members are chosen by the board. I mean, seriously, how is that independent from the government? They literally have government appointed people on the board. > Comparing the BBC to Sky is like comparing TfL to Uber No it isn't. TfL is not a private car service, like at all. BBC and Sky are largely apples to apples in terms of their primary interests. Sky manages to operate a very broad set of programming, a news division, its own distribution technology, Sky employes 10k more staff than the BBC too. I think this article kinda sums up what I feel is the reality of the BBC's government independence: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/bbc-is-neither-independent-or-impartial-interview-with-tom-mills/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/bbc-is-neither-inde...

FabHK 5y ago

Indeed, the BBC cannot give in to government pressure. It sets great store by factual accuracy. And if the defense of the realm is at stake, it has to be very responsible. See the wonderful documentary^W comedy Yes, Minister. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog

monkeynotes 5y ago

You can have a parent company specifying budget, policy, and mandates whilst being entirely hands off on the day-to-day. > The BBC has an entirely separate board that should have no relationship to the current government in power The director/board all report to the Queen, who defers to the government who enact mandates for the BBC. The government appoints senior members. I just don't see how you can say the BBC is autonomous in terms of what its board decides. > From Wikipedia: The chair and four non-executive members representing the four nations are appointed by the Queen-in-Council, on the advice of the UK Secretary of State. Five other non-executive members are appointed by the board and the four executive members are chosen by the board. I mean, seriously, how is that independent from the government? They literally have government appointed people on the board. > Comparing the BBC to Sky is like comparing TfL to Uber No it isn't. TfL is not a private car service, like at all. BBC and Sky are largely apples to apples in terms of their primary interests. Sky manages to operate a very broad set of programming, a news division, its own distribution technology, Sky employes 10k more staff than the BBC too. I think this article kinda sums up what I feel is the reality of the BBC's government independence: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/bbc-is-neither-independent-or-impartial-interview-with-tom-mills/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/bbc-is-neither-inde...