mrswdk wrote:saxitoxin wrote:mrswdk wrote:Because the BBC isn't state media. That's why people actually trust it.
Well, let's see ... it's funded by the state, run by a board appointed by the state, operates under the authority of a statute enacted by the state.
Of the BBC's 14 board members, only four are appointment by the government (none of whom are executives).
... and the remaining 10 are appointed by the 14 of whom the first 10 were selected by the four government appointees. This is a classic British "independent" body. The government doesn't make the appointments, it just appoints the ones who do.
And this doesn't even get into the fact that this entire system was just conjured into existence two years ago at the whim of a single political party and can just as easily be changed again tomorrow by the same party.
You might as well say FOX news is only allowed to exist because American laws allow it to therefore it's state media.
FOX lacks 2 of the 3 characteristics of state media. It doesn't receive state funding and its governing structure is not established by the ruling party.
Its affiliate stations do operate under state licenses, and in my mind it is therefore less independent than a newspaper, however, meeting only one of three criteria doesn't make it state media. Plus said licenses are granted by a multi party commission using an objective regulatory code and the judiciary can injunct an attempt to revoke a license if the code is subjectively applied.
