[rounce]

The BBC is not state funded, it's a public broadcaster primarily funded by the general public, via the (admittedly outdated) TV licence fee system. Although the media output for the UK is non-commercial, it does have commercial operations and interactions though and they are mostly centred around the content produced for overseas consumption. As this post is on the .com domain where the international content exists (and which runs ads), I presume it is part of the paid content side of things.

[wizzwizz4]

Correct. The .co.uk version has this disclaimer:

> This website is produced by BBC Global News Ltd, a commercial company that is part of BBC Studios, owned by the BBC (and just the BBC). No money from the licence fee was used to create this website. The money we make from it is re-invested to help fund the BBC’s international journalism.

[cubefox]

> The BBC is not state funded, it's a public broadcaster primarily funded by the general public, via the (admittedly outdated) TV licence fee system.

If the fee is mandatory, it works similar to a tax, in which case it would be more correct than incorrect to say the BBC is state funded.

[layer8]

Public broadcasting is usually only partially publicly funded, and also funds itself with ads and content licensing. And one normally speaks of public funding in that context, not of state funding. There is furthermore an important difference between public broadcasting and state media, where for the latter it may be more common to use the term state-funded.

[tacet]

To add, public broadcaster often is collective (state) funded, but it is supposed to be independed from state.

How much media can or rather may diverge from state opinion depends country to country.

[cubefox]

Public funding means essentially the same as state funding, just the connotation is more positive.

[leni536]

It is not mandatory.

[umanwizard]

> The BBC is not state funded, it's a public broadcaster primarily funded by the general public, via the (admittedly outdated) TV licence fee system.

How is that different from being state-funded? Everything state-funded is paid for by the general public, through taxes. That's part of what being a state is: an organization that forces people to pay taxes and directs them to various programs.

Are you claiming that the TV license fee isn't a tax? It's money that the state makes you pay so that it can fund something.

[rounce]

The state doesn't make me pay it because I don't watch live broadcast TV, therefore I don't have to pay it. It's not a general tax it's a hypothecated tax and is administered by the BBC not the UK government.

Furthermore the state isn't in charge of administering it anyway, it's a civil matter brought about by the BBC (or rather the company which is subcontracted to enforce licencing). The BBC has the authority to do this based on the Royal Charter that governs it, that doesn't make it "state funded" or a "state broadcaster".

[umanwizard]

> The state doesn't make me pay it because I don't watch live broadcast TV, therefore I don't have to pay it.

There are plenty of taxes that only some people have to pay, for example, the fee to register a car.

> Furthermore the state isn't in charge of administering it anyway, it's a civil matter brought about by the BBC (or rather the company which is subcontracted to enforce licencing). The BBC has the authority to do this based on the Royal Charter that governs it

I'm trouble understanding how this doesn't make it part of the state? It is a 100% state-owned entity to which the state has granted (in a "Royal Charter") the ability to collect taxes... the distinction you're trying to draw seems meaningless to me.

Sure there may be two separate entities, one called "The UK Government" and one called "The BBC" where neither is part of the other, but structurally I don't see how you can claim that they're not both part of "the State" in general.

[nephihaha]

The state has changed it from a criminal offence to a civil one. They also have to apply for a warrant to enter a home which takes time is legally difficult.

The enforcers work for neither the BBC nor the government but are subcontracted out.

[nephihaha]

The BBC is a state broadcaster which claims to be autonomous, but that doesn't apply when it comes to foreign policy or the royal family.

[ViktorRay]

This isn’t true. The content of the BBC is independent of the UK government. Even for the royal family and for foreign policy.

I am not British so I could be wrong however. If you have evidence that the BBC lacks autonomy when it comes to foreign policy or to the royal family please share it with the rest of us.

[nephihaha]

The BBC coverage of the royal family is always crawling. They tried to bury the Andrew story several times. The entire BBC is under royal charter.

As for supposed autonomy from the government... Watch BBC News, you can always get a good idea of who the UK will go to war with next... Before it happens. Their coverage of the Troubles was also reflective of the British government.