As an American looking across the pond over to England, I’ve only seen a certain small part of the BBC, namely BBC America on some obscure channel on my television. Gotta love Comcast cable…
Anyway, I’ve been told by people that the BBC is actually owned by the British Government. On the other side, I’ve been told that the BBC has some of the most impartial news reporting today. Can any Brit confirm or deny this?
And, as an American, we often have the idea that state-run industries are auto-corruption and walking propaganda tanks, at least that’s what was bashed into my head when I attended the ladder parts of elementary school. So, part two of the question, assuming that the BBC is to some degree more impartial than American networks, which probably wouldn’t be difficult, how can it be that a government owned television channel doesn’t become one massive propaganda apparatus?
So, in summary:
How impartial IS BBC news reporting?
Assuming that the BBC is relatively impartial, how can it remain so, being dependant on the government?
And, as an optional bonus to those really helpful folks out there, can you correct any misconceptions I may have about the British Broadcasting Network?
The BBC is an independent Corporation licensed by Royal Charter.
If you own any piece of kit capable of receiving a BBC TV signal, then you are legally required to purchase a TV licence, which costs over £100. The BBC is, in theory, funded by the revenue from this licence (although it does also raise money in other ways, just not by selling on-screen advertising space).
It is neither owned nor run by the government, but the government has a role in its funding. Every few years, the relevant government department has a look at the BBC in the context of UK broadcasting as a whole, decides whether to carry on with the licence fee system, and then has a think about whether the fee should increase and if so by how much. This is supposed to happen in a spirit of co-operative consultation, with the BBC allowed to make representations as to why it thinks it is entitled to carry on being funded by the licence fee and what it thinks the fee should be put up to.
Part of the BBC’s remit is to provide independent and impartial news coverage, and also to use its freedom from commercial constraints to cater for tastes and audiences that commercial broadcasters can’t afford to cater for. Politicians of all colours claim from time to time that the BBC is biased against them.
It is often said that the BBC does not show commercials. This is simply not true. It runs countless thousands of commercials all the time. They just all happen to be comercials about how brilliant the BBC is. Kind of like Stalinist propaganda, really.
The TV licence is, of course, just another form of tax. It’s one we don’t need, and can’t do much about.
If you ignore the personal prejudice of the last two paragraphs from ianzin then you have some idea of the set-up of the BBC.
Whether or not the BBC is unbiased will be a matter of opinion I’m afraid.
I can correct one of your misconceptions though. The BBC stands for the British Broadcasting Corporation. England and Britain are not interchangeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC is a good starting-point, unlike ianzin’s rant-disguised-as-answer. No, it’s not a “state-run” organisation. The government cannot influence the BBC’s day-to-day activities, and when it tries to, it’s regarded as newsworthy in itself. The BBC and in particular its news coverage rarely shys from criticising the government.
Yes, it’s probably impossible to ensure that the BBC’s output could never be influenced by politicians. But the question over whether this risk is preferable to a very real but lesser influence from commercial concerns typical of most other broadcasters, that seems to me as much about about ideology as about the realities of how the BBC functions.
Probably the best way to get a feel for the aims of the BBC is to spend a while listening to Radio 4, which has a focus on news, current affairs, and ‘serious’ programming. You’ll get a feel for how they’re free to talk about pretty much anything they want.
One of the things I find most reassuring of the general impartiality of the BBC is that pretty much any political body considers it biased against them - all at the same time.
Because the BBC is not commercial in nature, it is not entirely driven by consumer demands; in theory, this means that uneconomic minorities can find themselves represented, as well as the possibility of programming that challenges/stimulates the viewer/listener (as opposed to spoon-feeding him what he wants) - Not really a truly equitable comparison, but an example of this would be the difference between Radio 3 (BBC) and Classic FM(commercial) - Classic FM needs to stay mainstream in order to keep the listeners, in order to maintain the advertising revenue - the result is that the station only really plays popular, well-worn and well-loved classical and contemporary instrumental music. By contrast, BBC radio 3 need not be unduly worried if an experimental programme is a flop; any listeners who turn away as a result will probably come back sooner or later and no harm is done.
The end result is that Classic FM is nice to listen to, but that’s about as far as it goes; Radio 3, on the other hand, brings discovery and challenge to the listener.
Whether or not the BBC in practice succeeds in its remit to challenge, stimulate and educate its audiences is the topic of much debate, however, it certainly is possible, and more so than commercial broadcasting - simply because of the way the system works.
One of the big problems the BBC has is that certain recent tenants of the most senior positions were widely seen as political appointees or to have purchased the job. Greg Dyke, for instance, was a Labour party member and gave £55,000 to Labour.
It’s true that Greg Dyke’s appointment was viewed with suspicion…but as he was forced out by the controversy over the David Kelly reports, I don’t see that anyone could seriously argue he was a Labour puppet.
The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is probably more similar to what the OP has in mind.
It is undeniably 100% state-owned (television licences were abolished here in the early 1970s). It receives most of its funding from the federal government, and a little from retailing its own products. It advertises these products relentlessly, but it does not show any third-party advertising. It has a charter which guarantees its editorial independence, but also instructs it to be impartial.
Overall, the ABC doesn’t do to badly, however there is a perception that it is slightly biased to the left (whether this is true or not is hotly debated here). For Americans, think NPR, except the ABC is run on a much larger scale with television being its mainstay, but also local, national, and international AM, FM, and shortwave (Radio Australia).
I love watching TV in the UK. You have the best television in the world largely due to the BBC. If you don’t believe this take a trip the the US or Australia and spend a few days in front of the TV.
Don’t forget that the BBC is just one of several broadcasting organisations in the UK. Of the five terrestrial TV channels ( known as “stations” in the US) , only two are operated by the BBC. Similarly the BBC operates five national and about 30 regional analogue radio stations, but there are dozens more run by non BBC companies. The only difference is that the non BBC TV and radio stations broadcast commercials, whereas the BBC does not (apart from plugging its own programmes). Then there is satellite and cable. The same is true there with hundreds of stations , only a small proportion of which are BBC owned.
Reading the SDMB over the last couple of years I am surprised at how many Americans think that the only broadcasting organisation in the UK is the BBC.
Just a quick summary of the BBC’s actual provision:
TV: Two channels provided by terrestrial analogue, plus six more on terrestrial digital & satellite
Radio: Five national stations on analogue, with another five on digital & satellite. Forty regional radio stations across England, and two each for Wales, Scotland & N Ireland (including stations in Welsh and Gaelic).
Plus various other things, such as five symphony orchestras.
I love BBC Radio, 1, 2, 3 and 4.
When you’re used to a station when every other song isn’t followed by an advert for a carpet warehouse or discount car dealership you really notice the difference when you tune in to commercial radio.
There are certain ways around the TV licence. Like the fact that elderly people get their’s free, so if you have an elderly person in the house you can put the licence under their name and not pay. The licence is one flat rate per household, there is no limit to the number of TVs in the house, and with Freeview you’re still probably paying less and getting better quality television than many people in other countries.
After a week of Italian Satellite TV and an American news channel - our hotel room had CNN in English, a German News channel, a French News Channel and 15 Italian channels which all seemed to be showing gameshows with women competitors in bikinis- the BBC seems like bliss.
It’s probably worth mentioning that Americans may well perceive the BBC as having a leftward bias, but that this is most likely only because the centre of UK politics is to the left of where the centre of US politics lies.
Maybe ianzin should move to France, the State funded channels have as many adverts as the other channels and the licence has been scrapped - except it hasn’t really disappeared, it has been automatically added onto your housing tax !
If you want an honest view of what’s going on in the world, forget the anti-American BBC and listen instead to Dr. Michael Savage, radio host of the nationally syndicated “The Savage Nation.”
The program is on five days a week around the country and is heard (and loved) by tens-of-millions … as the brilliant doctor pulls no punches and takes no prisoners!!
Liberals absolutely hate the guy’s guts, that’s how good he is!!!
Who said the BBC was anti-American?. Perhaps it’s that small majority of Americans who believe any criticism of their fair country is tantamount to treason. The sort of “either you’re with is or against us” attitude shown by the present US government.
( I knew this thread would turn into a GD one way or another ! )
A difficult question to answer, as it is so easily coloured by your own personal bias. As has been pointed out, people from all sides complain about the BBC’s bias. That’s as good an indication as you’re likely to get that they’re impartial.
They are only dependant on the Government when it comes to setting the cost of the TV licence. Any governmental involvement stops there. Attempts to further expand governmental influence is always treated as a big deal and is usually counter-productive.
:rolleyes: This wasn’t what the OP asked.
The BBC World Service is on seven days a week around the world and is heard (and loved) by 149 million. I’m guessing this gives it all sorts of advantages when it comes to knowing what’s going on in the world.