I certainly didn't mean to suggest this broader conclusion. My point was solely concerned with precision of language in the use (not, originally on this thread, by you) of the phrase 'state-run'. When you say that an entity B (in this case a broadcaster) is 'run' by an entity A (in this case a government or state) you imply that A has continuous, direct control over everything B does. That's what the transitive verb 'to run' means in this context. Such is self-evidently the case with the broadcast media of a totalitarian state, which unambiguously operate as the state's propaganda arm and which are staffed by state officials. Such is self-evidently
not the case, however, with the BBC, which has the freedom, frequently exercised, to broadcast views highly critical of government, and to act in other ways which government may find uncomfortable, difficult, or offensive.
State-influenced, by all means, in the same way that many other British public bodies, with their irritatingly messy constitutions, are state-influenced. But state-run, no.
Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember the near-paranoid conviction of Harold Wilson, the socialist Prime Minister of the mid-1960s, that the BBC was a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get him. A little ironic in the light of recent events.
Wilson could have been right about that. I wasnt really around back then so dont really know.
All I do know is that the BBC is dangerously anti-American and anti-War as of late. If it was some privately owned commercial enterprise there wouldnt be a problem. A la The Guardian or Indepenednt newspapers.
Probably like about half the country, I dont agree with the BBC's geo political view of the world, and certainly don't want to pay for it's propagation.
I wouldnt be happy if it was like FOX either, and was also funded by a license fee. Political views are very personal, and its like having your own right to choose, taken away from you. I completely resent that.
Regards,
Coldcall