Remix clone Hacker News

It's mere cynicism to argue that the BBC must exist for propaganda purposes simply because the British government (very indirectly) pays for it.

>we'll probably find out what the current vetting arrangements are in the 2040s

We'll find out because the BBC is subject to public scrutiny. Good luck finding out about the historical vetting arrangements of CNN or Fox news! Or indeed, those of Russia Today.

You only have to look at actual examples of BBC news coverage from the period you mention to see that it wasn't government propaganda with the goal of making the British government look good or expressing some nebulous "British point of view":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gbms5

Margret Thatcher, the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century, hated the BBC. She had 11 years to get rid of it. She couldn't because it's an independent institution and the UK has (imperfectly) a system of democratic norms. Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them.

▲

roenxi 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's mere cynicism to argue that the BBC must exist for propaganda purposes simply because the British government (very indirectly) pays for it.

So what's your complaint about RT? Because I'm seeing arguments here that suggest if it were subject to public scrutiny it isn't propaganda, if factions of the Russian government want to shut it down it isn't propaganda, if it says something critical of the Russian government it isn't propaganda. If it is funded by the Russians it isn't necessarily propaganda.

None of those arguments in defence of the BBC really get to the root of the issues, RT could sit on any pole of all those observations and it'd still be Russian propaganda. We don't need any of those details on how the sausage is being made. The issue is that the reason it exists is to push the Overton window in directions that are favourable to the state known as Russia - and the BBC serves the same purpose for Britain and hits the same triggers as RT for identifying propaganda.

> Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them.

I never put either of those things. They are both obviously untrue.

▲

foldr 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Margret Thatcher wasn’t a “faction of the British Government”. She was Prime Minister for 11 years. Do you really think RT would still be here if Putin had wanted it gone for the past 11 years? People and institutions that Putin wants rid of don’t tend to hang around quite that long. And what sort of effective public scrutiny can you possibly think that RT’s journalism is subject to?

But more broadly, you’re arguing at a level of abstraction that rises above actually looking at the content produced by the BBC in comparison to the content produced by RT. You only have to watch each for 15 minutes to see the very clear difference. Perhaps your theory of the world tells you that the BBC must be British propaganda because it depends to some extent on the British government for its existence. Ok then — so much the worse for your theory of the world. Believe it or not, there is actually such a thing as public service broadcasting as distinct from state propaganda. The BBC is really the obvious counterexample to any claim to the contrary.

> Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them. >> I never put either of those things. They are both obviously untrue.

You asked “If [the BBC] isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down?” That clearly suggests that the government of the day could defund the BBC if it displeased them.

Thatcher certainly wanted to put the BBC in its place after the clip I linked above. Her husband memorably complained that she’d been “stitched up by bloody BBC poofs and Trots [Trotsykists]”.

▲

roenxi 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> Margret Thatcher wasn’t a “faction of the British Government”. She was Prime Minister for 11 years.

Fair enough, faction of British politics. She didn't have the power to shut down the BBC, so she obviously didn't represent the consensus position. Again, the argument seems like it would be that the BBC isn't propaganda because the British PM is relatively weak. That doesn't hold together. Besides, Putin isn't the PM of Russia, Wikipedia tells me that is Mikhail Mishustin.

> But more broadly, you’re arguing at a level of abstraction that rises above actually looking at the content produced by the BBC in comparison to the content produced by RT. You only have to watch each for 15 minutes to see the very clear difference.

So if RT was better written then it wouldn't be propaganda? Because the fact that the BBC has better journalists and targets the middle and upper class in style doesn't particularly mean much except they're better at their jobs than the RT people. You're mistaking propaganda for low quality writing with that one. Good propaganda relies on truth and being mostly credible (see also - the model pioneered by the BBC with enormous success).

> You asked “If [the BBC] isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down?” That clearly suggests that the government of the day could defund the BBC if it displeased them.

"displeased" is a bit vague but yes if there was a consensus in the Houses of Lords and Commons that the BBC wasn't advancing the interests of Britain I imagine it'd not last long. The parliament is quite powerful when it unites on a question of policy. That doesn't mean a PM can just snap their fingers and the BBC disappears, it'd be a long process.

▲

foldr 11 hours ago | parent [-]

The BBC certainly serves the interests of Britain, but it does so precisely because it is not merely a state propaganda service. You mention the limits on the PM's power. More generally, there are reasonably effective democratic norms and institutions that prevent the BBC's independence from being subverted by the government. Independent journalism isn't unbiased or uncolored by its political environment, but it's distinct from propaganda.

If you want to say that the BBC is British propaganda just because the journalists are British and present a British point of view (rather than, say, a Surinamese point of view), then ok, but I don't think that's a very interesting point. By that definition, every American news service is American propaganda.

Some of your other points here are transparently not serious, such as the suggestion that I can't compare the British PM to the Russian President because the latter has a different title.

	▲	roenxi 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If you want to say that the BBC is British propaganda just because the journalists are British and present a British point of view (rather than, say, a Surinamese point of view), then ok, but I don't think that's a very interesting point. So if you were to focus in on RT, are you of the opinion that it isn't Russians pushing mainstream Russian viewpoints? That is the major complaint most people have - it is representing an unabashed Russian perspective and choosing issues that powerful Russians think are important. The issue with the BBC is it is government funding, with historic links to British intelligence vetting to make sure that the journalists had appropriate views and a long history of running British propaganda globally with no obvious reason as to why they'd stop. The UK is supporting a particular bias and pushing it out for global broadcasting - that is the essence of propaganda. Plus as a comment pointed out further upthread, according to Wikipedia their Charter links them to objectives set out by the Foreign Secretary. This is more or less where RT will be sitting - there isn't much else they can do. If I were to somehow end up running RT as their head of propaganda, I'd do two things: first, learn to speak Russian. Second, sit all the managers down and use my new language skills to call them idiots and tell them that standards were going up and they need to do things more like the BBC. No compromising factual accuracy and there's going to be high quality articles out on every topic from a staunchly Russian perspective. That's how competent people run their propaganda missions. The real mistake RT has been making for years (hilariously on stereotype for the Russians) is it is far too direct and straightforward about executing its mission. It'd be more effective if they were a few notches more subtle - the BBC sits at a much neater optimum. > By that definition, every American news service is American propaganda. A lot of them are. One of the interesting things about the so-called Twitter Files was how quickly Twitter was integrated into US state propaganda, presumably similar linkages are kept with other US media companies. But I wouldn't say that all US media outlets are US State propaganda. Many of them are independent propaganda for their own reasons, with independent funding and goals.