4 ms·

You're right, "state-run" is perhaps a clumsy term to use, and doesn't quite capture the dynamics between the BBC and the government. "Official state media" is

You're right, "state-run" is perhaps a clumsy term to use, and doesn't quite capture the dynamics between the BBC and the government. "Official state media" is more correct

mellosouls 4y ago
"Public service broadcaster" is even more correct. Your original comment had truth to it but bundling the BBC in undermined that, however you define it here.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  What's the difference? Your term sounds like mine but dressed in less neutral, more positive language.
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    I don't think it's less neutral - your (non-standard) definition conveys the idea of government mouthpiece which supports your original comment but doesn't reflect the BBC's history or mission.
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      Didn't intend to convey it was a mouth piece for the government. But it's definitely official, and definitely a state institution, even the tail wags the dog a lot more than say XinHua. "Public Service" is plainly a positive term though. It lends an air of altruism. Not particularly interested in what nomenclature is standard (according to who? 7 etc etc).
femto 4y ago
Under the Westminster system (UK, Australia, ...), the public service is supposed to be apolitical, 'frank and fearless’ and non-partisan. "Government run" isn't supposed to be equated with biased and partisan. The public service is there to serve the people rather than members of parliament. Sadly, this ideal of the Westminster system has been under attack for the last decade or two. Secrecy has been broadly imposed on the public service and non-partisan department heads are sacked and replaced with political lackeys. The ideal isn't dead though. There are people in the public service who are trying to keep it non-partisan, and those efforts should be supported rather than it all being written off as a hopeless case. [1] https://sef.psc.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government-context/the-westminster-system https://sef.psc.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government-context/the-westmi...
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  The public service are un-elected, largely unaccountable, very expensive and wield a tremendous amount of power. Westminster type systems are arguably hybrid oligarchies. Australia is a good example - look how it continues to function in largely the same way, on largely the same trajectory, despite having 5 prime ministers in the last 10 years.
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    What do you mean? The PM is a function of what the governing party wants, and in 10 years we've mostly only had a single party in Federal government. But either way, this isn't really true of state governments which have differed quite a lot over the past few years.

You're right, "state-run" is perhaps a clumsy term to use, and doesn't quite capture the dynamics between the BBC and the government. "Official state media" is more correct

mellosouls 4y ago

"Public service broadcaster" is even more correct. Your original comment had truth to it but bundling the BBC in undermined that, however you define it here.

LAC-Tech 4y ago
What's the difference? Your term sounds like mine but dressed in less neutral, more positive language.
- mellosouls 4y ago
  I don't think it's less neutral - your (non-standard) definition conveys the idea of government mouthpiece which supports your original comment but doesn't reflect the BBC's history or mission.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    Didn't intend to convey it was a mouth piece for the government. But it's definitely official, and definitely a state institution, even the tail wags the dog a lot more than say XinHua. "Public Service" is plainly a positive term though. It lends an air of altruism. Not particularly interested in what nomenclature is standard (according to who? 7 etc etc).

femto 4y ago

Under the Westminster system (UK, Australia, ...), the public service is supposed to be apolitical, 'frank and fearless’ and non-partisan. "Government run" isn't supposed to be equated with biased and partisan. The public service is there to serve the people rather than members of parliament. Sadly, this ideal of the Westminster system has been under attack for the last decade or two. Secrecy has been broadly imposed on the public service and non-partisan department heads are sacked and replaced with political lackeys. The ideal isn't dead though. There are people in the public service who are trying to keep it non-partisan, and those efforts should be supported rather than it all being written off as a hopeless case. [1] https://sef.psc.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government-context/the-westminster-system https://sef.psc.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government-context/the-westmi...

LAC-Tech 4y ago
The public service are un-elected, largely unaccountable, very expensive and wield a tremendous amount of power. Westminster type systems are arguably hybrid oligarchies. Australia is a good example - look how it continues to function in largely the same way, on largely the same trajectory, despite having 5 prime ministers in the last 10 years.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  What do you mean? The PM is a function of what the governing party wants, and in 10 years we've mostly only had a single party in Federal government. But either way, this isn't really true of state governments which have differed quite a lot over the past few years.