How is the BBC paid for? If it is paid for by the government, is it given complete independence in its reporting? Are there ever threats by government officials concerning its funding?
I think so. See here.
Here’s what [ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc#Funding]Wikipedia has to say.
Ahem. I meant to link that Wikipedia article.
Let’s get it straight. The “government” doesn’t pay for anything. Its the good folks of the UK who pay for “The Beeb”.
Taxes and licenses for receivers are the preferred method of support for BBC programmes.
There’s even a billboard campaign encouraging neighbors to “narc” on each other should they spot a new TV aerial they suspect might attached to a neighbors unlicensed TV set…nice, huh?
I’d rather the Budweiser spots than all that license brew ha-ha.
I missed this one. There’s plenty of rather distasteful scare-tactic adverts about TV licences, but I suspect the ones you’re describing are the completely unrelated ones about benefit fraud.
Errr…who collects the taxes and license fees, if not the government?
Oops, posted that a bit quick.
As the link explains, the licence fee is collected by TV Licensing, a trading name for the companies contracted by the BBC to collect the licence fee.
It’s true that the government, through the Minister for Culture, Media & Sport (currently Tessa Jowell) is responsible for the setting the amount the BBC is allowed to charge as the licence fee, and hence the amount of revenue they can get from the taxpayer.
so how is the BBC kept independent? do they have to worry about having funding cut if they report something that the majority party doesn’t like?
No.
They just are * independent. They are paid for by the people of the UK and therefore belong to the UK. Governments come and go and have very little say.
Sorry for this not being a very good answer!
*Of course those of us who don’t have a TV nor licence don’t contribute but DO get a very good deal on free access to worldclass radio programming. 
I think the answer lies in British culture. We are a pretty calm nation (e.g. we queue politely), but we can be roused by injustice.
For example we love our National Health Service.
We will pour onto the streets to celebrate a World Championship victory (yes, they are rather rare!), and also to protest about Government shenanigans.
The poll tax was one such occurence.
Any British Government that tried to ‘take over’ our BBC would face a massive wave of unpopularity.
We are proud of our World Service being independent of the ruling party.
Back in 1926 the government did try to take over the BBC during the General Strike . That well known libertarian, Winston Churchill, who was Home Secretary, wanted to use the BBC as a propaganda tool to break the strike. He was sent way with a flea in his ear by the BBC Chairman, John Reith, who’s strength of character was as strong as Churchill’s . That was a looked upon as a “test case”, and the government have never tried to pull the same trick again.
The BBC is immune from day to day threats from the government. However, the government sets up the amount of funding and some indirect influence on how it should be spent (e.g. towards the new digital channels). The government appoints the board of governers, however it is a relatively non-partisan appointment process. If the government doesn’t like what the BBC is doing it has to operate indirectly, e.g. through press releases pondering whether the Board of Governers should be done away with (which I think they are now) or about levels of future funding or through an official complaints procedure.
The BBC’s independence is guaranteed by its Royal Charter, which is regularly reviewed to ensure that nothing in it is being violated by either the BBC or the government. What private media companies regularly get away with would have BBC employees or government ministers losing their jobs, as evidenced by the Dodgy Dossier affair which ulatimately led to the resignations of both the head of the BBC and the chief government spokesman, all for the mere suggestion that the government had amended Iraqi intelligence reports, which other news companies trumpeted with impunity.
As for funding, yes, the primary source is the license fee (but note that we have other advertising-led channels and Sky subscription channels as well, of course), but the BBC also keeps the license fee down to a reasonable sum (way cheaper than Sky) by selling its products on overseas.
The World Service is actually directly funded by the government. Doesn’t seem to be any less neutral than the rest of the BBC though, from what I’ve heard of it.
The government does have some say in the running of the World service but not any editorial control over the programmes . Its only input is to suggest to what parts of the world, and in what languages the broadcasts are made. Thus, because of the problems in the Middle East, more output is now in Arabic and other languages aimed at that region. On the other hand the BBC is stopping broadcasts in Czech , Polish and German because of the ending of the cold war, and the assumption that those countries now have radio stations free from government control.
Cite?
I’ve never seen such a thing and I can’t imagine a more unreliable, ridiculous and outdated way of identifying unlicenced TVs.
I didn’t have a TV for 10 years, and the way they work is that they assume everyone has a TV, so they send annoying letters (I got them every 3-6 months) and the occasional inspector (I got a visit) to those residences where nobody has paid.