The BBC is an odd institution, for which there is no real equivalent in the US. "Arm of the government" is to put it in strictly US libertarian terms which are not really appropriate. The best analogy I can come up with is that it is more like the broadcasting equivalent of a public university. It is very departmentalised, and each department is very much serving the needs of its client audience. So, just as in a public university, there is a sociology department that is full of deeply intense men with beards and hideous females bemoaning how badly done to they are. And there is a natural history department full of eco-freaks who peddle gaia worship behind nice pretty panoramas of animal kingdom wonders. But there is also an engineering department that builds and races cars all the time and couldn't give two hoots about lesser spotted owls, and a chemistry department that just likes creating bad smells and laughing at all of them.
Sometimes that frees it up to put on better TV, but it also frees it up to put on a lot of absolute dreck that thankfully never gets over here, and of course there’s the whole being a propaganda machine problem.
According to that great American sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon 90% of everything is dreck! As for "propoganda", balanced viewpoints are impossible. On that basis you could argue every TV channel is peddling propoganda. At least the BBC (because of its departmental structure) has a variety of biased viewpoints. Pick the ones you like!
What you’re missing is what the product is. TV shows are NOT the product TV channels sell, WE are the product they sell, TV shows are just there to lure us to watch commercials.
I know, and that is the point. With Commercial channels you are one more step removed from the process. Commercial TV is a quirk in the capitalist model. The stations provide the product, but the money comes from advertisers, rather that you the customer (Yes I know there is PPV, but that's a small part of the market). Personally, I prefer TV channels to show what I want, not what some TV executive THINKS that an advertiser MIGHT be prepared to sponsor.
When your corporation gets most of its money from the government you’re an arm of the government whether you can admit it or not.
I think the Beeb gets a lot more than 90% dreck. Even the BBC makes fun of how much bad TV there is on the BBC.
It’s not about balance, it’s about control. I don’t expect balance in anything within itself, but I prefer the control is in the hands of private citizens. Because private citizens are easier to “fire” than the government.
We aren’t the customer of commercial TV, advertisers are the customer, we’re the product, shows are the lure and structure. The only way to get a channel that shows just the stuff you want is to own it. Worked great for Howard Hughes, not sure what the rest of LA thought about Ice Station Zebra being on all the time though. TV execs don’t put on what they think might be sponsored, they don’t put on any show they don’t have advertisers for, what they’re putting on is what they think might draw enough viewers to be worth the sponsors money.