[DaiPlusPlus]

> The attitude that the public doesn’t know what’s good for them is disgusting; it’s the very core of the nanny state.

It’s very demonstrable though - it’s why practically every country has an equivalent to US Social Security - and why most democracies are Representative instead of Direct.

Your argument would have more strength if the BBC or national arts funds operated in a vacuum - but they exist in competition with other private, profit-driven organisations. I feel it’s important that the public get exposure to programming that commercial sponsors (and thus network-execs/channel directors) wouldn’t touch. And it’s also essential for unbiased (or as close to unbiased as we can get) broadcast journalism.

(I accept that when a “Premium”-service customer base is large enough, e.g. HBO-sized, the need for state funding is minimised - I think HBO in particular is in a good place to launch a US-based, commercial-free broadcast news service - but smaller countries and markets would definitely need to employ some form of state funding to ensure editorial independence and an informed populace - which can only be good for democracy)

[AnimalMuppet]

Not quite "in competition". If I understand the way TV licenses work (or perhaps worked, in the past) in the UK, you didn't have a choice of paying for the BBC if you had a TV at all.

If that has changed, it might lead to the BBC having to face competition now, when it didn't in the past. That might have an effect on the content, which might be (at least part of) what the article is observing...