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 boa

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...