Can't help but think their brains have been poisoned by Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black. See the same in Canada with people crying foul over the CBC being taxpayer funded. As if the state ceding 100% of news media to private, corporate interests would be for the betterment of society.
Well, the answer lies in the answers to these questions: what happens if you do not pay the fee for BBC, a service you do not use? What happens if it is private?
Do not, in the former, you risk getting caged? Whereas if it is a private company, you do not risk your freedom?
I do not like the idea of being thrown into jail for not paying for a service I do not use. I do not use Netflix, and that is fine, it has no dire consequences. What are the consequences of not paying for BBC? Genuinely curious, because I am not sure.
Free countries don't need their own Pravda. For every Murdoch there's a dozen other channels, and anyway, Facebook is worse for radicalization than any Murdoch property.
The State has press releases, and the ability to command attention for speeches simply due to their monopoly on force. That's sufficient; there doesn't need to be a full time propaganda wing for the people to hear the perspective of the state
You are confused about the role of the BBC. It's not there for state propaganda ( though that happens - as with any broadcaster ), it's mission is more parentalistic - ( Yep I've invented a word to cover maternalistic/paternalistic. )
Ask yourself - if the BBC was such a state machine - why do members of the government complain about it's output so much?
It's there to lift the nation culturally, to create a British identity and social cohesion - to inform, educate, and entertain. To be a positive inspirational force.
It's not a single entity, with a single voice - but a sum of it's employees.
> For every Murdoch there's a dozen other channels,
