[scott_w]

Did you miss this:

> UK Government cannot determine its agenda or directly influence its funding.

> The BBC will regularly criticise the government

The funding is set for a 10 year cycle, beyond the scope of any individual government specifically to protect the BBC from editorial interference by the government. That’s why it’s a publicly funded broadcaster, not “state media.”

The onus is now on you and the OP to prove your claim that the BBC is state media.

[throwaway85825]

When I say state media I mean media that exists as a part of the state. Like when it's funded by the state or the state has some other kind of influence over it.

[scott_w]

Your definition conflicts with UNESCO’s definition. By your reasoning, private US media outlets would have qualify as “State Media” because they kowtow to the Trump government - “some other kind of influence”. This is patently nonsense, so your definition is incorrect.

[dragonwriter]

UNESCO using a definition that doesn't account for fascist corporatism and other means vy which nominally private entities can serve as arms of the state doesn't make that definition universally correct, it just makes it UNESCO’s definition.

[scott_w]

Definition:

> State media are typically understood as media outlets that are owned, operated, or significantly influenced by the government.

Which part of this definition is lacking, in your opinion? Which part of the UNESCO report do you think is incorrect? My source: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380618.locale=en

[throwaway85825]

CBS is owned by an oligarch carrying favor. This isn't state media. Oligarchs act in their own interests and sometimes make alliances.

[scott_w]

You didn’t rebut my point at all. Try again.

[throwaway85825]

This isn't reddit. Try again.

[scott_w]

And yet here you are, desperately trying to soothe your bruised ego by proclaiming you aren’t bothered.