Why don't we ever refer to the BBC as "state television," and why doesn't the BBC refer to itself as "State television"? When the BBC refer to state broadcasters...they seem to infer that they are propagandising...and not "telling it how it is." But isn't the BBC a state TV station and don't they do the same thing? Odd!
Because it is not run by the government. It's a public service broadcaster, not a government TV station. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc#Management
It's the difference between the government owning the train companies and ensuring they are run on behalf of the public and the government using the trains to send people to concentration camps....
These people are, shall we say, wrong. Of course the BBC is state television. All its funding comes from the government: who do you think sets its policy?
I kinda know how the BBC is organised (The BBC Trust etc etc blah blah blah)...but it still feels like "state TV." The tentacles of government are too much over it for my liking. Compare the BBC with ITV etc - not the same. And how do I know the TV stations that the BBC claim are "state TV" are not run in a similar fashion as the BBC (If I accept the BBC is not "state TV") or commercial broadcasters? I do appreciate it probably isn't run in such a draconian fashion as some others, but I also don't think others are run in such a draconian fashion as the BBC would like us to believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Central_Television#Organization It almost feels like a derogatory term. Censorship Dictatorship etc I dunno...just a thought.
I think the problem is not with the structure and autonomy of the BBC, we have adequate safeguards to ensure that the BBC is not in any way a state broadcaster and is free from direct governmental intervention in its day to day editorial policies. I think there is a problem though and has been for a few years, and that is of the pusillanimity of the board of governors, now the trust. In 2003/04 there was a perfect example where valuable investigative journalism over the Iraq dossiers got the BBC in trouble with the government - good. That's what the BBC is for. There followed months of relentless political pressure from (a then very strong) new labour (Alistair Campbell particularly) which seems to have had a lasting effect on some of the BBC's current stances. Greg Dyke stood by his autonomy and independence but because of political pressure made a principled resignation. The problem is not that the BBC is not structurally independent but that they have in the last few years on several occasions due to poor managerial decisions and a lack of leadership failed to live up to their duty to uphold their independence in the aftermath of the Greg Dyke affair. Dyke's successor Mark Thompson seems to be a complete fuckwit, something of a weathercock for prevailing political and public opinion. This is not his role. He was a kneejerk replacement following Dyke's strong and independent leadership which ended badly due to inappropriate political meddling and bullying from the Blair regime. Thompson is a disaster for the BBC. The Board made a terrible decision in appointing him and the Trust has also has made some questionable decisions. The Jonathan Ross / Russell Brand scandal is just another example of the BBC's currently cowered position where they have unnecessarily bowed to external pressure when they should have stuck by their greatest assets, the talent that works for them and makes them what they are. While they are ultimately answerable to the public through the Trust, legally the BBC does not have to bow to political or media pressure, and while the relationship between the government, the BBC and the public is somewhat ticklish, especially around the time when the BBC charter is renewed, the BBC is able to embarrass the government, investigate it autonomously and independently, and make its own direction, quite removed from the interests of the ruling party of the day. While they obviously don't always get it right, they still do a hell of a lot better than any of their commercial rivals even given these other channels' totally commercial status. Obviously too there is little or no meaningful comparison to be made between the BBC and a state broadcaster like that run by the communist party of China...
Lithium: I can understand you admire Greg, you are in agreement with each other. I don't think you should shine his ass quite so much though, crikey...a real love fest is occurring here. It isn't worth going through the whole Dossier episode. But, I'd just like to add the BBC were not with out fault. "The BBC must now move forward in the wake of Lord Hutton's report, which highlighted serious defects in the Corporation's processes and procedures. On behalf of the BBC I have no hesitation in apologising unreservedly for our errors and to the individuals whose reputations were affected by them. We have begun to implement major reforms, including outside journalism, compliance systems, editorial processes and training of new recruits. " I did also think after Greg left, the BBC was damaged. But, news editors and senior reporters do claim nothing changed. It could be them putting a brave face on things, when faced with the reality Greg's politics interfered with his decision making process...which is what I think damaged the BBC (regardless of their spin on the matter)...rather than the government or Alistair. As far as the "The Jonathan Ross / Russell Brand scandal"...they even admit it was beyond a joke. You might have been rolling around on the floor while listening to the pod-cast, but that is immaterial, imo. I found it a little funny, that is immaterial too. But, with time, I can appreciate it over-stepped the mark. The point is, all concerned agreed it was unfair on Mr Sachs and his family. I think C4 does a superior job of holding the government to account. I don't really like their style...but would rather sit through a C4 expose than a boring BBC one. They (C4) don't have to be so fair or balanced...unlike the BBC. The BBC ultimately has to sit on the fence, regardless of the "damaging information the BBC has acquired" that they so love to repeat...even though it generally ends up being as weak as my dead grannies tea (R.I.P). You would think, wouldn't you. To be honest, I didn't wish to compare them. Just open up their organisation to a little scrutiny and to see what goes on. If you have any information regarding REAL censorship within the TV station I mentioned, I'd like to read it. Thanks.
Whether or not I agree with Greg Dyke (to be honest I have no idea and little interest what his politics are) is beside the point. Whether or not I found the Russell Brand thing funny is beside the point (I thought it was a little childish and not very funny). These were points about leadership and freedom of speech and the independence and autonomy of the BBC. Channel Four is not comparable to commercial broadcasters because while self-funding, like the BBC it is a public service broadcaster, publicly owned and with a public service remit to fulfil.
Well it's more about factual accuracy but we can agree to disagree... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_charter#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisations_in_the_United_Kingdom_with_a_royal_charter Organisations created under Royal charter have different organisational structures and different operational relationships with government but they are usually autonomous or quasi autonomous and self governing. The BBC in particular was specifically set up as an independent body at several removes from the government in order to ensure there could be no direct political intervention in its running.
I don't think ignoring his personal politics is fair. I do believe that is what guided him. He has been extremely vocal since he left the BBC. I can't imagine his feelings were left at the front gate of the BBC. Even he has questioned the independence of the BBC. Mr Dyke, who was forced out by the governors in the wake of the Hutton report in January, said they believed their own hype: "Over the years the myth has been perpetuated by the governors that they have guaranteed the independence of the BBC. "I don't think the evidence supports that." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/24/broadcasting.bbc I could probably fill this thread with his thoughts about the BBC, the government and independece of the BBC... lol. I won't though. Well, they certainly feel more partisan than the BBC. That was my point.
Yes I think Greg Dyke is right from what I've read of his comments, but what he is referring to is the pusillanimity of the board of governors, which is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Yes I'm sure we could have further safeguards to ensure that the Trust cannot again make such poor decisions as it has recently - decisions which are I might add no part of its remit and go against the core principles of the BBC. To suggest that some recent high level mistakes mean the BBC is not independent or is a "state broadcaster" is of course factually wrong and based on a lack of understanding of its structural procedures and defining principles. And while these mistakes are important the fact remains that the BBC is removed from government intervention and is able to provide world leading independent journalism and programming, which it does on most occasions, bettering by quite a margin the output managed by commercial networks...
I think it is a matter of opinion on the pusillanimity of the board of governors. Greg is free to share his thoughts on the matter, but I do fear they reflect his opinion with the paradigm of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan and how he felt about the governments foreign policy, rather than being totally fair to the governors of the BBC. His comments since he left have left me feeling he has sour grapes that everything didn't go his way and his opinion was not backed 100%. I raised his points to highlight the BBC'S independence is a constant question...fairly or unfairly. They have a right to reply and I am sure they refuted fervently Greg's accusations. None of what you highlighted informed my feelings about why I thought the BBC was "state TV." It was just a feeling. Not a particularly strong feeling, but just a feeling none the less. I still do feel there is atleast a perception that the BBC is not completely independent. You made a very strong case though, even if it was a little too much like a BBC press officer had written your post. I can see that the BBC has gone through mammoth changes over the last 30-40 years. Perhaps once upon a time even you would have considered it "State TV." I think the greater case could be made for BBC bias and having certain political agendas. But that is going a little too off topic. I did just want to bash this idea around for a little while...so I appreciate you taking some time to post. I'm still not wholly convinced, but do concede it is difficult to make a water tight case for my premise. I think the BBC is more off-white than whiter than white. It certainly has dirty secrets behind those shiny doors and perfect press statements. You can say they are completely independent journalists etc...but that suggests no collusion at all, there is always going to be some rumours floating around. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ll-unit-influenced-alqaida-report-912324.html We'll never really know the whole truth. So, it's perhaps impossible to say with 100% certainty the BBC is 100% independent.
Yes as this thread demonstrates there is a perception that the BBC is state run, and that assumption tends to come up again and again, often from people who've had little contact with the BBC. As this thread demonstrates the assumption usually comes from those who have little or no understanding of the way the BBC is actually organised, the nature of its charter and its relationship with government and the public through the BBC Trust. In truth this is a complex relationship, the BBC is by charter accountable to nobody but the public but how that accountability is mediated obviously entails some grey areas of conflict and influence. This is expressed in the way the BBC management and the Trust interact with each other, and varies somewhat between different managerial regimes. Overall its organisational structure seems to do a pretty good job of keeping the BBC independent. To me it "feels" nothing like a state broadcaster, in fact looking at large sections of the BBC's output it looks remarkably like a commercial broadcaster in the way it commissions, produces and targets it programming. But that's whole other kettle of worms... At certain points in the BBC's history it may well have been close to being a state broadcaster, particularly during world war two, but I seriously doubt that has been the case for half a century or so. Assuming that the BBC of today is "government run" or anything close to it is either a result of simple ignorance of the facts I've outlined here or conspiracy theory.
I understand - god forbid it ever were to happen - we are not going to get 12 hour sermons - Hugo Chavez style - from the Prime Minister, about the ins and outs of Labour policy...or his thoughts on the The Common Agricultural Policy. The stigma (I do think it is used by the BBC et al as a derogatory term - however ironic it might be or not be) of "State TV" seems to not diminish. But, looking at the Chinese "state TV" they too have diverse programmes aimed at various sections of society. I think a much more valuable endeavour would to look at other countries "State TV" and to see how they have altered over the years. I'd like to see if they are controlled as much as some would have us believe.
