▲ | shakna 14 hours ago | |||||||
The British government has repeatedly tried and failed to shutdown the BBC. They have repeatedly withdrawn funding. MI5 have had agents deployed inside the BBC to try and subvert it. As of 2017, it runs by royal assent, and there is just about bukpus that the Parliament can do about it. Because at the same time, funding was moved to a trust, to prevent political interference - a trust that both main parties attempted to shutdown, and control, at different times, but were told that they could only operate within the rights granted by the royal charter. > The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs. Its not a perfect system. But it is very far removed from the daily pressures of propaganda and an angry government. The BBC is not really "state backed". They are independent. | ||||||||
▲ | roenxi 13 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
My eye is drawn to the section: > The various foreign services of the BBC have always been tied, in some manner, to the national interest. In the 2017 Agreement, that means the Foreign Secretary. Article 33.6 (right) is subject to the Mission and the Public Purposes of the BBC as defined in the Charter, but it supersedes Article 3 (independence). > Taking account of the strategy and the budget it has set, the BBC will agree with the Foreign Secretary- > (a) objectives, priorities and targets for the World Service; > (b) the languages in which the World Service is to be provided | ||||||||
|