And by comparing the Beeb to other media, not license funded, it’s actually possible to check how impartial they are. It’s not as if the Euro public service companies don’t have competition.
The difference for us is that we have all the things you mention in the U.S. (plus the actual U.S. companies via Internet) *and * the public service company. I get the impression that you’re ideologically opposed to the fee based public service, but don’t know what the actual output is.
The North Korea false dichotomy wasn’t very helpful, btw.
Slight nitpick, just because this point often comes up in discussions of the licence fee - you only need a licence to receive TV broadcasts (that is, watch them or record them). You don’t need a licence to use a TV as a monitor for a games console, DVD player or computer. I don’t think you need a licence to watch TV via the internet (yet, but I’m sure the BBC will push for it now that their iPlayer is so successful.)
There are frequent calls that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is left-leaning, and as a conservative I frequently agree, but I think it’s getting better and it’s also a good institution.
We did away with silly TV detector vans when I was a baby thirty-odd years ago (I certainly don’t remember them). No TV licences. Also, no incessant begging for donations like PBS in America. Just a public broadcaster with several TV channels and a lot of radio stations, funded out of general government revenue, and with very good (if not perfect) editorial independence. And there is no advertising.
That’s interesting. Is there any feeling that the Australian government does or might seek to influence the ABC by threatening to reduce its funding? If not, is there some mechanism which could prevent that? Or would it simply be unpopular with voters?
The previous federal Government (the Australian Liberal party, the local equivalent of the Republicans - not at all what Americans mean by Liberal) that was voted out late last year did their best. They cut the ABC’s funding “as part of general government expenditure reductions” which mysteriously didn’t seem to affect any institution they actually supported. They also stacked the ABC board with partisan appointees, but oddly they seemed to take their responsibilities under the ABC’s charter of independence seriously, and didn’t end up having much actual influence over product. Two of the most subversive programs of recent years, **The Chaser’s War on Everything **and Summer Heights High, were made under their aegis.
The previous gov’t also tried to prove the ABC was biased against them by setting up inquiries, but even those didn’t show anything decisive; while there were isolated incidences of possible bias in specific episodes of specific programs, no institutional bias was shown. And indeed every gov’t of every stripe have claimed ABC bias, which is probably as close to proof of non-partisanship as you’re likely to get.
And yes; the ABC’s rusted-on audience are fiercely loyal and surprisingly conservative on balance; the rural folks who ONLY get them for news and information would defend them to the death despite being convinced they are all urban lefties. It’s odd.
As **Rosiland ** says you don’t get a concession for being poor or out-of-work although you do for being over 75. I guess the theory is that even the very poor can afford the cost of a pint of beer or a lot less that 20 cigarettes each week (you can pay weekly at various shops).
As a Brit and a licence fee payer I have to say I am generally happy with the system as it is - at least in terms of news output. I moan each year when I have to pay for my licence but I appreciate the bedrock that the Beeb is independent and required to at least try and be impartial by the Charter that sets it up.
Sometimes its output annoys me and I feel I can see an underlying bias - for years BBC news has been absurdly negative about nuclear power - but I would see this as just the prejudices of the editorial staff rather than the policy of the organisation. Whoever controls the editorial policy it is not the government. As Derleth’s Guardian article says the government at times tries to control the news agenda but the very fact they are talking about “promoting material to the BBC and other media…” shows there are multiple sources and that they cannot be directly controlled. (Incidently the Guardian is not exactly without its own agenda in this area!)
The Australian experience is interesting, from **The Loaded Dog ** and Askance’s posts it sounds like the situation is very similar but with a different funding model - general taxation v licence fee. What this probably shows is that the apparent independence granted by the licence system is not the key factor - the important thing is the legal requirement for the broadcaster to be independent and impartial backed up by tradition and the normal checks and balances of a liberal democracy. If the government put undue pressure on the BBC or ABC the other political parties and the rest of the media would sceam blue murder.
Well, please let me reassure you by pointing out that although the BBC has frequently been accused of being pro-Israel/anti-Palestine and pro-Palestine/anti-Israel by different sources due to confirmation bias and personal prejudices, there is very little actual evidence of overt or covert Jewish influence on the BBC. In the same way, the BBC has also been accused of being both pro- and anti-Islam by various people with little evidence that any such biases went beyond certain individual programme-makers. If anything, it’d be Anglicans and Catholics who have had the biggest influence on BBC programming over the years.